ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Cities Fit for Cycling

Jonathan Ashworth: What progress he has made on implementing the recommendations of Cities Fit for Cycling.

Norman Baker: The coalition Government is working hard to promote cycling and make it even safer. Yesterday I announced a further £20 million of funding for cycling projects. This is on top of the £30 million of funding announced earlier this year to tackle dangerous junctions. We have also made it simpler for councils to put in place 20 mph zones and limits and install Trixi mirrors to improve the visibility of cyclists at junctions, by reducing bureaucracy.

Jonathan Ashworth: I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply. I recently met representatives of the Leicester cycling campaign, who made it clear that they felt that, if I may say so, the Government need to put more emphasis on and more support into cycling. Given that, will the Government commit to implement all the proposals of the Cities Fit for Cycling campaign and invest in dedicated separate cycling infrastructure?

Norman Baker: That, if I may say so, is a churlish interpretation of what the Government has done, which is to put enormous effort into improving cycling and progressing all the recommendations of The Times Cities Fit for Cycling campaign, which I very much welcome. It is perhaps worth noting that there was a huge backlog of important cycling interventions that we inherited when we took office and we are progressing well to deal with those.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister may know of the all-party group that I started in the early 1980s called PACTS—the parliamentary advisory council for transport safety—which organised the seatbelt legislation. We had the annual Westminster lecture, the 23rd, last night at which Jeanne Breen vigorously said that we are not going to get cycling deaths down and there will be a rising level of road accidents because this Government have given up targets.

Norman Baker: I do not think that is entirely fair. We have seen great action on road safety from the Secretary of State and from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who has just launched a campaign on cycle safety. Targets are an easy substitute for action. What we saw under the previous Government was legislation which caused delays, and targets which were a substitute for action. We like to get things done, not to set arbitrary targets.

Road Congestion

Jackie Doyle-Price: What steps he is taking to reduce congestion on Highways Agency roads.

Oliver Colvile: What steps he is taking to reduce congestion on Highways Agency roads.

Marcus Jones: What steps he is taking to reduce congestion on Highways Agency roads.

Stephen Hammond: This Government are committed to accelerating the delivery of roads infrastructure. Spending on the major roads programme to October 2012 was just over £1.9 billion. A £217 million programme of pinch point schemes is being progressed, as is a £3.5 billion programme of 20 major road schemes.

Jackie Doyle-Price: As my hon. Friend knows, the Dartford crossing causes motorists in my constituency a lot of grief, and although it is part of the national road infrastructure, the congestion impact is very much local. Will he give me an undertaking that he will do everything he can to tackle the congestion at the Dartford crossing and at junction 31 with the A13 and the M25 so that the jobs and economic growth that can be generated in south Essex will materialise?

Stephen Hammond: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As she knows, we are already progressing free flow through the Dartford tunnel. Also, we are in discussions with the Highways Agency about the junction that she refers to.

Oliver Colvile: I thank my hon. Friend for his recent announcement about the investment of £1.8 million in the Manadon roundabout, which is on the border of my Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency. Following last week’s flooding in the south-west, train passengers’ journeys to and from London have been very disrupted. Can my hon. Friend make an economic assessment of the impact of that on the Plymouth economy?

Stephen Hammond: Along with many other members of the Government, I offer my deepest sympathy to those who have been affected by the recent flooding. I recognise that it has been extremely disruptive, both for residents and for businesses, but it is too early to undertake an economic assessment. The Government’s main priority at present is restoring services to all those affected by flooding.

Marcus Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for meeting me to discuss the Woodford Lane A5 junction, the scene of many serious accidents which not only add to congestion on the A5 but have resulted in many serious injuries and the loss of a young life in the past year. Does he agree that we need to look seriously at trying to find a solution to make this treacherous junction safer?

Stephen Hammond: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. He will know that as a result of that meeting I have asked the Highways Agency to conduct a review of the junction’s safety record over the past few years and keep an eye on it over the next six months, and I have agreed to meet him to discuss the matter in the second half of next year.

Brian H Donohoe: One way that congestion could be greatly reduced would be by having a dedicated police service for the highways? Does the Minister agree?

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is already a police service that tackles that—the traffic police—and there are also Highways Agency officers who help with accidents.

England-Scotland Transport Links

Jim McGovern: What steps his Department is taking to improve transport links between England and Scotland.

Simon Burns: On rail, we are providing for improved links between Scotland and England through the High Speed 2 project, and the inter-city express programme will allow us to provide better services along the east coast main line. On roads, we announced on 23 May that the A1 north of Newcastle to the Scottish border has now been classified as a route of strategic national importance.

Jim McGovern: I am sure that the Minister will agree that better rail links between Scotland and England are vital to the Scottish economy and, indeed, that of the UK. What immediate steps has he taken to improve links between, for example, Aberdeen and Dundee on the east coast and London?

Simon Burns: I assure the hon. Gentleman that one of this Government’s priorities is to improve rail links throughout England, Wales and Scotland through electrification. On his specific question about improving services in Scotland, that is a matter for Arriva and the Scottish Government—[ Interruption. ] Sorry, not Arriva. It is a matter for the provider of train services in Scotland and the Scottish Government. We will work with them, as we have done in the past and will continue to do, to ensure that the improvements that Scotland needs are made.

Andrew Jones: The Government committed themselves to the inter-city express programme train contract in July. Will the Minister explain how that will improve services between Scotland and England, particularly journey times?

Simon Burns: It will make a significant improvement because it means enhanced rolling stock along the whole east coast main line from London to Edinburgh, which I believe will make journey times from Edinburgh to England about 15 minutes quicker overall. However, we should also take into account the improved quality of the service and the improvements to the track on the east coast main line.

Louise Ellman: The resolution of the west coast main line franchise issues will be important in enabling improvements to services in those areas. When did the Minister decide to postpone the publication of the Laidlaw report on the franchise fiasco?

Simon Burns: I would like to reassure the hon. Lady that there is no question of postponing publication of the report; we hope to publish it shortly.

Alan Reid: The existing plans for high-speed rail will reduce journey times from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London by almost an hour, but the ultimate aim must be high-speed rail all the way to Glasgow and Edinburgh. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Scottish Government on extending the lines north from Leeds and Manchester all the way to Glasgow and Edinburgh?

Simon Burns: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in early October, we will be looking at the feasibility of extending HS2 to Scotland via Leeds and Manchester, and we will certainly be holding discussions with the Scottish Government in due course to move forward analysis on the proposal.

Commission on Aviation

Zac Goldsmith: For what reasons summer 2015 has been set as the time by which the independent commission on aviation chaired by Sir Howard Davies must publish its final report.

Patrick McLoughlin: It is vital that the commission has sufficient time to carry out a thorough investigation of the options and build a consensus on its long-term recommendations. The timetable has been set to allow that to take place.

Zac Goldsmith: This looks very much like an attempt to kick the issue into the long grass until after the election. My message to the Secretary of State is that uncertainty for three years, and probably another three years for planning, is not only bad politics but bad for the economy. I urge him please to ensure that next year’s interim report provides real clarity on the Government’s preferred solution so that communities, businesses and, of course, voters can plan accordingly.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am not going to predict at this stage what will be in the interim report of a commission that has only just been set up. They will not be the Government’s recommendations; they will be those of the commission. I hope that the commission has been drawn widely enough to attract cross-party support.

Graham Stringer: After half a century of inquiries and investigations into runway capacity in the south-east of England, there are almost no new facts to be learned. Is this not just a fig leaf before the Government do a U-turn and provide a third runway at Heathrow?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that is the case, but it is not. In fact, we are trying to build a consensus across the parties on large infrastructure projects such as this, and to a degree that consensus has been achieved. The HS2 route that we have adopted is the route that the previous Government published.

Alan Haselhurst: In the meantime, noting the results announced by the owners of Gatwick airport yesterday, does my right hon. Friend believe that competition is an important element in trying to ease the capacity problems in the London airport system?

Patrick McLoughlin: The truth of the matter is that a number of airports are now owned by different companies as a result of the changes that have been made, and they are coming forward with their own proposals, which will add to the approach taken by the Davies commission. It will certainly not be short of representations of various sorts, including, I imagine, from my right hon. Friend.

Maria Eagle: The Prime Minister came back from his summer holiday saying that he was
	“more determined than ever to cut through the dither that holds this country back.”
	Having dithered for a year before finally accepting our suggestion of an independent commission on aviation, the Government have now cynically set a time scale that pushes decisions beyond the next election. Will the Secretary of State finally listen to all those, including the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, who want the national interest to be put before party management, accelerate the time scale, and ask Sir Howard Davies to produce his final report by the end of next year?

Patrick McLoughlin: In all honesty, the Labour party has also changed its position on what should happen at Heathrow. I would have hoped that the composition of the commission attracted widespread support. Indeed, one of its members is an adviser to the Leader of the Opposition on infrastructure projects. It is right that we get the right answer and build consensus on what we are trying to do.

Maria Eagle: Business will be bitterly disappointed by that answer. It is no wonder the Mayor of London has described his own Government’s approach to aviation as
	“a policy of utter inertia”,
	“glacial” and a “fudgerama”. HS2, Thameslink, franchising, investment promised in the autumn statement a year ago: all are running late. The Secretary of State is now presiding over the department for dither and delay. When is he going to get a grip?

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Lady was smiling at the end of her question, and that betrays the fact that it was a very good line written for her but not quite believed by her when she delivered it. We are doing a huge amount in delivering for UK infrastructure. I look forward to seeing the recommendations that she wants to put forward to the Davies commission, which will tell us what Labour wants to do.

Lincolnshire (Transport Infrastructure)

Edward Leigh: What improvements to transport infrastructure he has planned that will affect Lincolnshire.

Norman Baker: This Government is investing in transport infrastructure that will bring real benefits to Lincolnshire. We are bringing forward improvements to the A160/A180 by 18 months, which together with our funding for the A18/A180 will improve access to the port of Immingham. We are also providing some £50 million to support the Lincoln eastern bypass scheme. The line upgrade between Peterborough to Doncaster via Spalding and Lincoln will improve rail capacity in the area.

Edward Leigh: May I take my hon. Friend on a journey from the hills of Sussex to the broad plains of Lincolnshire along the old Roman way, the A15? If he goes along that route, he will find it narrow, congested and dangerous. Will he persuade his colleagues to reject the hideous wind farms that are going to disfigure it, and instead make it a dual carriageway, a noble highway taking people safely and speedily from Lincoln to Scunthorpe—the Via Norman Baker?

Norman Baker: I am always interested in winding journeys from Sussex to elsewhere in the country, so I look forward to being in Lincolnshire again. Wind farms are not a matter for the Department for Transport, as my hon. Friend knows, but I am sure that his comments have been noted, as you would put it, Mr Speaker.

Martin Vickers: I welcome the Minister’s announcement about the A160 and the Immingham bypass. However, many people travelling through Lincolnshire, when they reach the end of the A15, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) wants to be dualled, will be heading for the county’s premier resort of Cleethorpes, and in order to do so they will travel along the A180, with its original concrete surface. Will Ministers do all they can to ensure that that road is improved in the near future?

Norman Baker: I agree it is important to have quieter surfaces where it is sensible to introduce them. The Highways Agency has a policy of replacing concrete surfaces with quieter surfaces, as and when infrastructure needs to be replaced. I encourage local councils to follow a similar policy.

DVLA Counter Services Contract

Nigel Adams: What progress he has made on awarding the DVLA counter services contract; and if he will make a statement.

Patrick McLoughlin: On 13 November, I announced that the preferred bidder for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s counter services contract was Post Office Ltd. We expect the contract to be awarded before Christmas and it will be operational from April 2013. The contract will achieve savings of between £13 million and £15 million each year. The initial contract will run for seven years.

Nigel Adams: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Does he agree that this decision will provide a great boost for many village post offices, such as those in Hambleton, Monk Fryston and Cawood in my constituency, and will help to preserve their long-term viability?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who was one of the leading campaigners trying to ensure that the contract was awarded to the Post Office. I am pleased that it managed to win the contract. It won it in an open competition, which shows that it is able to win contracts from the Government to provide services. The decision is vital for places, including those in my constituency, that rely to a huge extent on their rural post offices.

Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend may recall that for a very brief while I was the shadow Department of Trade and Industry spokesman on post offices. The key thing has always been the need for footfall, because without it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) said, there is no viability. What increase in footfall does my right hon. Friend estimate will result from this innovative move?

Patrick McLoughlin: I do remember my hon. Friend’s time as our party’s spokesman on post offices. Indeed, I was the Minister with responsibility for the Post Office at one point in history, so I well appreciate how important post offices are to our rural communities. It is important that they win business, but they have to compete for that business. They have done so very successfully in this case.

Road Deaths and Injuries

Graeme Morrice: If he will make it his policy to reinstate national targets to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the roads.

Kate Green: If he will make it his policy to reinstate national targets to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the roads.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Government have no plans to reinstate national targets. The strategic framework for road safety sets out measures that we intend to take to continue to reduce casualties. Those include making forecasts of the casualty numbers that we might expect to see through to 2030 if our measures, and the actions of local authorities, are successful.

Graeme Morrice: With the numbers killed and seriously injured on Britain’s roads increasing for the first time in 17 years, will the Secretary of State think again about
	the decision to axe national targets on reducing deaths and serious injuries, which helped to focus efforts across Government, local government and the agencies?

Patrick McLoughlin: I will never take safety lightly; it must always be uppermost in the mind of the Secretary of State for Transport. The United Kingdom has a very good record. In 1979, the number of people killed on the roads was 6,352. In 2011, the number was 1,901. That is still far too many, but the country has been heading in the right direction.

Kate Green: Campaigners will meet in my constituency this weekend to discuss how we can improve local road safety. There is growing support for 20 mph speed limits in residential areas. Why does the Department advise that safety has to be balanced against economic considerations and traffic flow, when there is no evidence of longer journey times in 20 mph areas?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am always willing to look at the hon. Lady’s representations. It is important that we take a range of measures to improve safety. We have taken a range of measures, as have the companies that produce cars. There is no doubt that cars are much more responsive in their braking power than they were 30 years ago. We have made movements in the right direction. In some areas, 20 mph speed limits are right.

John Leech: At a time of budget constraints, agencies understandably concentrate scarce resources on the performance targets against which they are measured. That is clearly having an impact on road safety budgets. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider this decision because quite apart from the personal tragedy that is involved in all fatalities, it is a false economy, because every fatality costs a lot of money.

Patrick McLoughlin: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is right: a fatality not only causes huge damage and a dramatic situation for the family involved in that tragedy, but there is also cost to the health service and other services. There has been no diminution in the desire of the Department for Transport to improve road safety, and there will not be while I am Secretary of State.

Paul Maynard: The Secretary of State may be aware that road traffic deaths in the east midlands are double those in the north east per capita. As I learned from the Transport Committee inquiry into road safety, national targets allow underperforming local authorities to shelter behind the excellent performance of other local authorities, Blackpool included. Does the Secretary of State agree that national targets actually lead to more traffic deaths in some parts of the country because we are not targeting underperformance?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he makes an interesting point. Whenever serious or fatal accidents take place I want a proper investigation to take place, the results of which can be carried across to provide experience to other local authorities throughout the United Kingdom.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Secretary of State’s decision will be bitterly regretted by campaign groups across the country. Targets introduced by the Thatcher Administration 30 years ago had cross-party support and have successfully brought down casualty rates across the country. His use of the word “forecasts” indicates that he is trying to claw something back from his predecessor’s bad decision to abolish targets. Will the Secretary of State think again? Targets are not the whole solution but a component; they are part of the way to reduce serious injuries and deaths on British roads.

Patrick McLoughlin: I know the hon. Gentleman takes this issue incredibly seriously, and although he talks about deaths I think we should look at the seriously injured as well. In the year ending June 2012, there were 1,790 deaths on British roads—a 6% drop on the year before.

Mark Pawsey: The Secretary of State is well aware that those most at risk on our roads are young drivers. I was pleased to see his recent positive comments about placing restrictions on young drivers—for example, on the number of passengers they may carry or the times of day they may drive. Will he indicate to the House how those proposals might be taken forward?

Patrick McLoughlin: A number of representations on young drivers have been made to the Department for Transport and, as I said in that interview, they are all worth considering and investigating properly to see whether we can reduce the terrible toll that is sometimes caused by young drivers. However, that is not so of all young drivers. We read about the horrendous cases, but not about the many cases where young drivers behave and act responsibly on the road, as do other road users.

A1 (Dualling)

Nick Brown: What progress he has made on dualling the A1 north of Newcastle; and if he will make a statement.

Stephen Hammond: The Department has no current plans to dual the A1 north of Newcastle. In recognition of its importance for freight and other strategic traffic, the A1 north of Newcastle was designated as a route of strategic national importance in May 2010.

Nick Brown: Will the Minister explain the logic of that answer to the House, and say how the Government can designate the route as of strategic national importance but not continue to dual it north of Newcastle?

Stephen Hammond: As was made clear at the time, reclassification does not guarantee any extra funding, and any proposed upgrade would need to be subject to the usual decision-making process.

Road Capacity (North-West)

Jonathan Reynolds: What recent assessment he has made of road capacity in north-west England.

Simon Burns: The Department has not undertaken any recent assessment of road capacity in north-west England. Since 2010, however, the Highways Agency has completed two annual assessments of the operation of all its strategic routes in the north of England in terms of delay, journey reliability, capacity, accidents and some environmental measures. The next assessment is due in spring next year.

Jonathan Reynolds: The Minister’s colleagues are aware that the roads in the Longdendale area of my constituency suffer from severe congestion—one Minister courteously took the time to visit, and the Secretary of State represents a seat not too far away. Since that last ministerial visit, the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) and I have worked with local authorities in Tameside, High Peak, Derbyshire and Barnsley to try to work out a solution that will cover the whole corridor between Greater Manchester and south Yorkshire. There has been a lot of interest in the study and we have published an interim report. Will the Minister grant us a meeting to take that work further?

Simon Burns: As the hon. Gentleman rightly recognises, the scheme in the national programme was withdrawn in 2009 by the Labour Government. A considerable amount of work has been done since at a local level. Because I have considerable sympathy for areas where there is significant road congestion, and although there must now be a local approach to finding a solution, I or one of my ministerial colleagues would be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) if they would like to see us to discuss the matter further.

Andrew Bingham: Not only do the residents of Tintwistle in my constituency feel the ground shaking beneath their feet as wagons thunder by inches from their front doors, but the economic growth of the whole of Glossopdale is, in my view, being hampered by traffic congestion. Given that economic growth is a vital part of the future of the country, does the Minister agree that problems such as the Mottram, Tintwistle and Longdendale bypass assume even greater importance for local communities in towns such as Glossop?

Simon Burns: My hon. Friend raises a valid point, as did the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) in his question. The fact is that the scheme came out of the national programme in 2009. Therefore, the approach must be to find a viable local alternative to reduce congestion for the hon. Gentleman’s and my hon. Friend’s constituents, and to help to increase economic growth. I am sure my hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman and local communities and stakeholders will contribute to that. However, as I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman, if he and my hon. Friend would like to come and see me or one or my ministerial colleagues to discuss the matter further, we will be more than happy to meet them.

Stephen Mosley: The motorway network forms the backbone of the north-west’s road network. Has the Minister considered improvements to the M6 and M56 in Cheshire to improve capacity on them?

Simon Burns: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, that is the responsibility of the Highways Agency. However, I can give him an assurance from the national Government that we are determined to investigate all parts of the road network and rail network to identify pinch points, and problems that stifle economic development and create congestion, to ensure that Britain moves faster, swifter and more effectively.

Mr Speaker: I call Mark Pritchard. Not here.

Rail Fare Increases

Matthew Offord: What recent progress his Department has made on mitigating the effect on rail passengers of rail fare increases.

Norman Baker: We announced in October that the Government will again cap the increase in regulated fares at RPI plus 1% for rail fares and Transport for London in January 2013 and 2014. This will benefit over quarter of a million annual season ticket holders. Many more holders of weekly and monthly season tickets will also see lower fares and some commuters will be over £200 better off over the two years.

Matthew Offord: People in my constituency are concerned about the cost of rail fares, but those who use Thameslink are also concerned about its speedy progression. What reassurance can the Minister give them that the tendering process for the project was conducted in the right and proper manner, and that the project remains on schedule?

Norman Baker: Detailed evidence regarding the tendering process for the Thameslink rolling stock was given by the Transport Committee in September 2011. That confirmed that the requirements of EU procurement law had been met. The rolling stock procurement process is working towards commercial close in December and financial close early in the new year. Good progress has been made already on the infrastructure programme. Blackfriars and Farringdon stations are both operational, and enabling work at London Bridge is ongoing.

Rail Electrification

Claire Perry: What progress his Department is making on rail electrification.

Simon Burns: This Government have funded Network Rail to electrify almost 850 route miles, compared with about 10 route miles delivered by the previous Government in 13 years. The programme is on schedule. Passengers between Manchester and Scotland will be the first to benefit from electric trains by the end of 2013 and passengers on other routes will benefit soon after.

Claire Perry: I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. He recently wisely decided to review a further 80 miles of electrification west of Newbury down to Westbury, which would bring enormous timetable and speed benefits to my constituents, as well as to neighbouring constituencies. Can he confirm that freight will be included in that review and indicate when it will be complete?

Simon Burns: Mr Speaker, as you can imagine I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that kind and generous question. May I reassure her that we place great importance on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the rail network? I can confirm that freight is included in the review that I have asked for on the Newbury to Westbury line. I do not want to hang around on this matter, because it will get bogged down in bureaucracy. [ Interruption. ] I hope that officials and Network Rail will report to me by February 2013, despite the sedentary comments from the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle).

Clive Betts: A few months ago, the Government made the welcome announcement of the intention to electrify the midland main line to Sheffield, which the Secretary of State knows very well, by 2019. There is now a concern that the timetable may be slipping, and that only part of the route may be done by 2019. May we have an unambiguous statement from the Minister that the intention still is to electrify the whole of the line to Sheffield by 2019?

Simon Burns: May I try to reassure the hon. Gentleman and say that the intention certainly is to meet it by 2019? We have no information or knowledge to suggest that there is any problem. However, to provide further reassurance, if he were to make available to me any fears or evidence that suggests there might be slippage—even if it is erroneous information—I, as a matter of urgency, will look into it. I would not like a story to be established as fact that there is a delay, because we certainly do not believe that there is.

Topical Questions

Neil Parish: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Patrick McLoughlin: I thank all the people who are working to get our roads and railways back up and running following widespread flooding. It has caused significant damage to our infrastructure, but I know that every effort is being made to return the service and reopen all routes as soon as possible. I will be seeing those efforts myself near Bristol later today. I can also update the House on our preparations for winter. We now have almost 2 million tonnes of salt, nearly double the amount two years ago, on stand-by to keep our motorways and main roads ice-free. We have also invested heavily in equipment to help clear the railway tracks of snow, and to stop rail and points freezing. I hope to be able to publish the Sam Laidlaw report into the inter-city west coast franchising competition and update the House next week.

Neil Parish: I thank the Secretary of State for all the work he has done with flooding, especially in my constituency through Tiverton into Exeter. The M5 also flooded, which shows that it is necessary to have a second arterial route dualled. The A30 needs to be dualled from Honiton upwards, because the Stonehenge end has always been the problem. We should work northwards from my constituency—there is no bias there whatever, Secretary of State—and have a second route.

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is a great campaigner for his area. In my job as Secretary of State for Transport, I am learning a lot more about roads I have never travelled on. I will certainly look at his request—[ Interruption. ] I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I was misled by my opposite number. I was trying to listen to the hon. Lady as well as answer my hon. Friend. I assure him that I will certainly look into his representations.

Lilian Greenwood: With regard to bus cuts, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) suggested to this House that
	“there have not been the cuts that the Opposition are so keen to talk up.”——[Official Report, 19 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 485.]
	However, in July, Passenger Focus found that
	“the majority of passenger impacts were below the water line,”—
	and we now know that supported bus miles fell by 9.3% last year. Will the Minister therefore finally accept that the reduction in central Government funding has resulted in substantial cuts to socially valuable bus services?

Norman Baker: No. The hon. Lady quoted a particular figure for mileage, but not the figure for mileage elsewhere in the country, which has been pretty stable, or the numbers of passenger journeys undertaken in non-metropolitan areas, which have held up well. Overall, there has been a marginal increase in the number of passenger journeys, according to the last figures.

Robert Buckland: Junction 15 of the M4, in my constituency, is of vital regional and local importance to the economy, but is experiencing increased congestion. Will my right hon. Friend, or one of his ministerial colleagues, meet me and local representatives to discuss how we can alleviate this growing problem?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the congestion on this junction, and I would be delighted to meet him and a delegation of his constituents to discuss it.

Grahame Morris: I was interested to hear the Minister’s reply to Government Members about projects in the south, but I hope that he is aware of the huge disparity in public transport infrastructure investment: £5 per head in the north-east compared with £2,700 in London. Will he confirm, therefore, how many carriages will be built under the intercity express programme contract and how many carriages my constituents on the east coast main line can expect to see operating?

Norman Baker: It is not fair to talk about the disparity as the hon. Gentleman describes it. He might be relying on the Institute for Public Policy Research North report, but that report is incomplete—for example, it did not take into account the December 2011 local majors announcement. Of the local major schemes announced in the 2011 autumn statement, 62% by value were in the north and midlands and 35% were in the north alone,
	while 40% of projects in the 2010 spending review were in the north alone. It is a misrepresentation, therefore, to describe the investment as he has done. On the railway matters, I will ensure that he receives a written reply.

Alec Shelbrooke: If you will indulge me for one moment, Mr Speaker, I would like to say what an honour it is to ask a Transport question after serving with honour in the Department for two years. With that in mind, will the Minister tell the House what his Department is doing to ensure that all train stations, such as Garforth station in my constituency, have good disabled access?

Norman Baker: As my hon. Friend knows, we are committed to improving access to the rail network. The Access for All programme will deliver accessible routes to more than 150 stations by 2015 and more minor access improvements to more than 1,000 stations, and we recently announced a further £100 million to extend the programme until 2019. I have looked at his station, and the footfall is equivalent to more than 500,000 people. I am not making any promises, but that certainly puts it in contention for the next round of Access for All funding.

Paul Blomfield: Despite the challenge of our famous hills, Sheffield has embraced cycling, and many of my constituents have backed The Times’ “Cities fit for Cycling” manifesto. Will the Government commit to implementing the manifesto in full, as Labour has, and does the Minister recognise that only investment in a dedicated cycling infrastructure will encourage road safety and a switch to bikes?

Norman Baker: The amount of money the Government has invested in cycling—through the local sustainable transport fund and the £20 million I announced only yesterday to the House—dwarfs what the last Government invested over 13 years. We are making good progress on all the points identified by The Times’ campaign, which we very much welcome, and on catching up with the legacy that I am afraid we inherited from the last Government.

Guto Bebb: A letter from the Transport Minister to the Welsh Select Committee highlighted the fact that the Welsh Assembly Government have made no case for investment in the north Wales main line. As a result, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has set up a taskforce to make the business case for that investment. Will the Minister assure me that the Department for Transport will work closely with that working group in order to make the case for that crucial transport link in north Wales?

Simon Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because, as he will probably be aware, the Welsh Government were particularly anxious for electrification of the valley railways and the extension of electrification from Cardiff to Swansea, which is now happening. They will be looking at and pressing the case for electrification in the next tranche from 2019 to 2024 for north Wales. My right hon. Friend the
	Secretary of State for Wales strongly supports that, and we will work with the Wales Office and Welsh Government to put together a proper case for consideration.

Mark Lazarowicz: I wrote to one of the previous Ministers about enforcement of advanced stop lines, but did not get a very positive response. Will the Government now look at ensuring that advanced stop lines at traffic lights are complied with much more effectively?

Norman Baker: We are always open to suggestions to improve road safety and traffic management. We are undertaking a review of traffic signs, which has been completed, and a further review of traffic management processes. If the hon. Gentleman gives me specific details of his concern, I will ensure that it is fed into the process and given proper consideration.

Duncan Hames: The Government recently awarded the core Crossrail signalling contract to the proven talent of Chippenham’s Invensys Rail, working in partnership with Siemens. What provisions in that contract will secure a British-based work force for the project, in light of today’s announcement of the intended sale of Invensys Rail to Siemens?

Patrick McLoughlin: I need proper notice of that question, but I will certainly write to my hon. Friend with the answer.

Jessica Morden: Toll increases on the Severn bridge were announced last week. Businesses and commuters in my constituency feel that they are paying the highest tolls in the UK. What they would like to hear from the Government is that they will do what they can to help now and that when the concession ends, the tolls will be substantially reduced for local people, not considered a useful revenue stream for the Government. Will the Minister make that commitment?

Stephen Hammond: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As she and other members of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs heard, the tolling arrangements will continue beyond the concession because of the debts that are still repayable to the UK Government. We are in discussions and have had letters from the Welsh Government about arrangements post 2018, and I will look at them most seriously.

Anne McIntosh: In 2007 funds were awarded under capital expenditure grants—the Bellwin formula—to Hull and Gloucestershire. Will similar moneys be awarded to repair bridges and roads that were severely damaged in the September floods in North Yorkshire?

Patrick McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made a statement dealing with the Bellwin formula and some of the flooding. I will look at the suggestion my hon. Friend has made.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State revisit the issue of electrifying the Barking to Gospel Oak section of the North London line? Electrification would make freight transport much
	more efficient and cheaper and enable much greater integrated working of the whole London overground system with the same trains, rather than having to switch to diesel on one section.
	[
	Interruption.
	]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) should not be chuntering from a sedentary position about who came into the Chamber when. I know perfectly well what I am doing. The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has been here for some time. He has been legitimately called and that is all there is to it. It is very straightforward. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire should keep schtum; he might learn something.

Patrick McLoughlin: I hear the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made about the line. Strong cases have been made. The line did not make the cut for electrification last time. We have announced huge electrification across the network, and I will certainly look at the case he has made.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Recycling

Philip Hollobone: What the recycling rate has been for recyclable materials on the Commons part of the estate in each of the last five years.

John Thurso: The percentage figures for the amount of general waste recycled or recovered by weight from the parliamentary estate in the last five financial years are as follows: 2007-08, 44%; 2008-09, 47%; 2009-10, 50%; 2010-11, 52%; and 2011-12, 53%. These figures are for the parliamentary estate as a whole, as we are not able to break down the figures by House or building. The percentages exclude batteries that are recycled but for which no weight figures are currently provided and builders’ waste. The figures include food waste, a proportion of which is being sent to an anaerobic digestion facility.

Philip Hollobone: It certainly seems encouraging that the recycling rate is going in the right direction. Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the progress being made? Perhaps lessons should be learnt from some of the local authorities that have far higher recycling rates than we currently do in this House.

John Thurso: I do not believe that we should ever be content with where we have got to on recycling. The Commission and the Management Board are doing everything in their power to increase the recycling rate. As new recycling waste streams are developed, the House works closely with its waste contractor to maximise the opportunities to increase the rate, and the House will certainly be happy to look at any other authority that is an exemplar to see what it can learn.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Member representing the House of Commons Commission also look into the question of the non-recyclable items that are produced and used by the House, such as plastic wrappings and envelopes, with a view to ensuring that paper, which can be recycled more easily and cheaply, is used wherever possible?

John Thurso: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful suggestion, and we will certainly do that. I can tell him that a new collection process for office waste has recently been agreed, which will allow recyclables such as cans, plastic, paper and cardboard to be collected in one bin, with the segregation of materials taking place in a municipal recycling facility once the waste has left the estate. Clearly, development of that stream would lead us to the objective that he is seeking.

Central Procurement

Karen Lumley: What plans the Commission has to make it easier for hon. Members to procure administrative equipment centrally for the purpose of creating economies of scale.

John Thurso: The Commission appreciates the economies of scale that are achievable through central purchasing. In order to make such benefits available to individual Members, the House service and PICT have competitively tendered contracts for administrative equipment and consumables. PICT holds a number of contracts for ICT equipment and services, and it has recently let a contract with QC Supplies for printer cartridges and toner. The contract offers substantial discounts on original cartridges and on remanufactured cartridges with a full guarantee. Parliament has also recently let a contract with Banner Business Services for stationery and other office supplies. I have asked the managers responsible for those contracts to contact the hon. Lady to ensure that she is fully aware of what is available.

Karen Lumley: Does my hon. Friend agree that many Members are unaware of the opportunities to secure supplies centrally? What can the Commission do to increase awareness in that regard?

John Thurso: I have asked the House service and PICT to take further steps to provide Members and their staff with information on the contracts for toner and stationery. It is proposed to include articles on what is available and how to use the contracts in future issues of Commons Monthly and The Commons View. I suggest that all Members might like to take up readership of those two excellent publications. In the next few months, we will invite suppliers to mount exhibitions in the atrium of Portcullis House. The offers are also mentioned in the documentation from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and e-mails have been sent out. We will continue to do everything possible to popularise them.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

House Business Committee

Fiona Mactaggart: When he expects to establish a House business committee.

Andrew Lansley: I continue to consider this matter and I look forward to further constructive discussions on the issue with the Procedure Committee and others.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am concerned about the timetable. Yesterday, the Prime Minister expressed regret, in an answer to the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), that he did not have control of the House of Commons agenda, but actually he does have control of most of the House agenda. A decision of the House was made in 2010 and the proposal was in the coalition agreement. When are we actually going to see the House business committee?

Andrew Lansley: As I said, it is my responsibility as Leader of the House to ensure that we make progress in enabling the House to conduct its business effectively and efficiently. It is incumbent on me to ensure that any development in this area takes into account the progress that we have already made since May 2010. For example, just last week the Procedure Committee published its review of the operation of the Backbench Business Committee. That gives us important information about that progress, which has been very positive. It also enables us to consider the question of a House business committee constructively.

Peter Bone: The Leader of the House could make a real name for himself. I would like to see him as the chairman of this new parliamentary timetabling committee, but should he not be elected by the whole House rather than being appointed by the Executive? I am sure that he would get a lot of support from Members on both sides of the House.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his solicitude for my future. When I was talking about constructive discussions, I was including the discussions that I have had with him, and with many others across the House, to ensure that we add value to the way in which the House manages its business. That is what I am looking to do.

Angela Eagle: We know that there is no greater champion of the House business committee than the Government Chief Whip, who said two years ago that
	“we must not lose sight of the progress that we want to see made in the third year of this Parliament on a House business committee”.—[Official Report, 15 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 782.]
	Given that we are halfway through that third year, when will the Leader of the House sit down with me to discuss how he intends to turn the Chief Whip’s vision into reality?

Andrew Lansley: I share with the shadow Leader of the House admiration for what the former Leader of the House, now the Patronage Secretary, has achieved. In the context of the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee and the clear progress consequent upon it, I want to make sure that we follow up constructively on the progress already made.

David Nuttall: Following on from that, will the Leader of the House confirm that whenever the House business committee is established,
	there will still be a valuable role for the Backbench Business Committee to play and that that role will continue?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who illustrates precisely the point that I hope I was making, which is that we want to build on the progress that has been made and that we want to do it in a constructive way. The progress made regarding the Backbench Business Committee, as illustrated in the Procedure Committee’s report last week, provides a very good basis on which to continue those discussions.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Lords/Commons Service Provision

Thomas Docherty: What recent discussions the Commission has had with the Lords House Committee on greater sharing of service provision.

John Thurso: The Commission has had no recent discussions with the Lords House Committee on greater sharing of service provision, but the House administration remains very open to opportunities for areas where joint working with the House of Lords will provide benefits, while bearing it in mind that, on occasion, the priorities of the two Houses will diverge.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful for that answer. We Scots know that Aberdonians have a particular reputation for knowing the value of tuppence. Given that Lord Sewel is now the Chairman of the Lords House Committee, does the hon. Gentleman think that there is a real opportunity in 2013 to make significant progress with the Commons Administration Committee’s recommendations on how to cut costs, cut bureaucracy and save the taxpayer money?

John Thurso: I believe there are significant opportunities. I had the opportunity to work with the noble Lord Sewel on the Scotland Bill in the other place, and I had a felicitous meeting with him at Aberdeen airport two weeks ago when we discussed this very subject. I look forward to making progress in the future.

Networking Infrastructure

Diana Johnson: What progress has been made on work to update networking infrastructure on the estate to ensure that hon. Members’ offices can receive live local and regional television and radio programming and use internet radio devices in their offices.

John Thurso: Access to internet television and radio services in Members’ offices may be limited by the capacity of the parliamentary network. Planning for a major upgrade has started, but this is likely to be a long-term project. The annunciator system provides alternative access to television and radio service in
	Members’ offices. Following recent testing, it is hoped shortly to make proposals to enhance this service, including the provision of up to 100 additional channels. Wi-fi is already in place in 95 locations across the estate, including the Chamber, Committee Rooms and public spaces. It should be available in Members’ offices by March 2013.

Diana Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Although I welcome having channels such as al-Jazeera to keep up to date with international affairs and having access to Sky Sports in my office, I would certainly like to have access to my local BBC regional news, BBC Humberside. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that keeping up to date with what is happening in a Member’s local area is just as important, if not more so, than having access to al-Jazeera and other channels.

John Thurso: I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. I miss BBC Radio Highland and Moray Firth Radio when I am down here in the south, and would greatly value the opportunity to receive them. There are significant technological difficulties, one of which relates to how the parliamentary estate is configured. I can assure her, however, that her point was well made and well taken. We will continue to see what can be done.

Alan Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to move as fast as we possibly can with full digitalisation, which not only provides the benefits that have been described, but enables information about facilities in this House to be better known to all our colleagues?

John Thurso: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend, whose Administration Committee is doing a great deal of work in this area. One opportunity will come when, in the next two or three years, we move towards the whole concept of cloud computing. That will offer a whole range of possibilities that currently are not technologically possible. We need to keep our eye on this ball and move it forward.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Named-day Written Questions

Jessica Morden: What steps he is taking to ensure that written questions for named-day answer receive a substantive answer on the day named.

Andrew Lansley: My office collates information on departmental performance in relation to ordinary and named-day parliamentary questions, which is then submitted sessionally to the Procedure Committee. I intend to continue to work with the Committee and with Departments both to report on and to improve performance.

Jessica Morden: My named-day question to the Home Office about the cost of the police commissioner in Wales after the mess-up over the ballot papers appeared not on the day named but more than 20 days late, conveniently after the election was over. I should not have been
	surprised, however, as the Home Office replies to only 37% of named-day questions on time. What more can be done to make Departments respect this process?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady will be aware that the Procedure Committee is following the matter up and that I am in contact with Departments about it, and she will be encouraged to know that the Home Office has improved its performance recently. I think that what we need to do is lead by example. In the last Session, the largest number of named-day questions—2,260—were submitted to the Department of Health, which achieved a 99.6% positive response rate.

Mr Speaker: Mr Robertson, perhaps? I can take a horse to water, but I cannot force him to drink.

John Robertson: I assume that you are calling me to ask a supplementary and not a main question, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned the Home Office. I pointed out recently that questions from my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State had still not been answered by the Secretary of State. Will the Leader of the House look into the matter? It appears to be something of a problem in the Home Office. How can the Opposition be expected to work properly if they cannot hold the Government to account? It is very difficult for us to do that if the Government do not give us answers.

Andrew Lansley: I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. As I said to the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), it is perfectly possible for Departments to achieve a positive response rate of virtually 100%, but not all Departments do so. The Procedure Committee is following that up, and I shall be working with Departments to try to improve their performance. I might point out that in the last Session a 100% positive response rate was achieved by the Office of the Leader of the House, and, as I said earlier, the Department of Health achieved a 99.6% rate.

European Scrutiny

Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with the Minister for Europe on future scrutiny of European affairs in the House.

Tom Brake: The Minister for Europe is engaged in discussions with the relevant Committees in both Houses on arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of European issues. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has had discussions with the Minister on the subject in recent weeks.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for that reply, and also for the work of the previous Leader of the House, who is present.
	Would there be any merit in allowing Select Committees such as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to scrutinise some of the more technical statutory instruments implementing environmental or agricultural regulations from Brussels?

Tom Brake: I agree that Select Committees could play an important role in scrutinising many more of the matters that come out of Europe. I am pleased that the Minister for Europe has been consulting widely, and I am sure that he will present some very sensible proposals for the enhancement of our European scrutiny.

Mr Speaker: Patience rewarded: Mr Lindsay Roy.

Lobbyists (Standing Orders)

Lindsay Roy: Whether the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists will require any changes to the Standing Orders of the House.

Tom Brake: That will depend on proposals that will be published and scrutinised by the House in due course.

Lindsay Roy: Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain why progress in establishing a statutory register seems to have been so slow?

Tom Brake: As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is a complex issue on which the Government have been consulting. We are committed to building a system that provides transparency without hindering legitimate lobbying by those with an interest in Government policy. We will publish revised proposals later in the Session.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 3 December—General debate on the Leveson inquiry.
	Tuesday 4 December—Remaining stages of the Public Service Pensions Bill, followed by motion relating to the appointment of Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority board members.
	Wednesday 5 December—The Chancellor of the Exchequer will present his autumn statement, followed by consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill.
	Thursday 6 December—A debate on a motion relating to the 40th anniversary of the expulsion of Ugandan Asians, followed by general debate on defence personnel.
	The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 10 December will include:
	Monday 10 December—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Financial Services Bill.
	Tuesday 11 December—General debate on public expenditure.
	Wednesday 12 December—Opposition day (12th allotted day, first part). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Thursday 13 December—Motions relating to standards and privileges, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week.
	The flooding across England and Wales this week has caused widespread chaos and, sadly, a number of deaths. I would like to add my tribute on the work of the emergency services and all those involved in providing assistance to those affected.
	The increasing frequency of serious weather affecting the UK underlines the importance of robust flood defences, yet spending on flood defences has been cut by a quarter, delaying much-needed schemes. Even the Government’s own advisory Committee on Climate Change warned in July that Ministers are not doing enough, and now hundreds of thousands of people risk being unable to obtain insurance because the Government have not reached an agreement with the industry. We welcome the statement earlier in the week from the Environment Secretary, but will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on measures to protect people across the UK from flooding, especially in light of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report published today?
	I thank the right hon. Gentleman for arranging a statement by the Foreign Secretary on Palestinian statehood —something I asked for last week. At business questions
	last week I also raised the matter of the Liberal Democrat party member who masqueraded as an independent in the police and crime commissioner elections. I asked for an urgent statement, but unfortunately the Leader of the House has not been able to find time for one. I wonder whether he will reconsider, however, because I have managed to get hold of a letter put out by the Liberal Democrat candidate standing in today’s Middlesbrough by-election. In it he says,
	“things seem to be getting worse, not better.”
	I have read the letter very carefully, but, by some strange omission, nowhere does it mention that the Liberal Democrats have been in government for the last two and a half years, so will the Leader of the House now find time for a statement on cynical electoral subterfuge?
	We are all looking forward to the publication of the Leveson report later today. During business questions on 28 June, I asked:
	“Will the Leader of the House arrange in future business for Liberal Democrat and Conservative Ministers to share the speaking time to give both parties ample opportunity to differentiate themselves?”—[Official Report, 28 June 2012; Vol. 547, c. 448.]
	I must confess that I meant that suggestion to be parody, but yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister made a request to have a separate statement from the Prime Minister on the Leveson report and I see today that that has been granted. What on earth is happening to collective responsibility? I notice that the play “Yes, Prime Minister” is leaving the Trafalgar theatre to go on a UK tour, but with this Government in office there will at least still be one farce running in Whitehall.
	The Government have been struggling to get their legislation through the House of Lords. This Government’s peers easily outnumber Opposition peers, yet for the entire duration of the Labour Government our peers never made up more than 29% of the total. May I say to the Leader of the House that the problem the Government have is not with the quantity of their peers, it is with the quality of their legislation?
	There have been reports in the media that the Prime Minister is planning to create 100 additional peers, despite the fact that the House of Lords is already the second biggest legislature in the world—after the equally democratic Chinese National People’s Congress. Filling the House of Lords might be the only successful job creation scheme this Government have come up with, but will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent statement on the seemingly inexorable expansion of the second Chamber?
	Word reaches me that this week’s Cabinet meeting was even more fractious than usual. Apparently, the Chancellor blamed the Culture Secretary for failing to deliver on the Government’s promise to roll out superfast broadband and the Culture Secretary blamed her predecessor, with her aides saying that she had done more in two months than the current Health Secretary had managed in two years. Astonishingly, the welfare Minister, Lord Freud, blamed the Chancellor for the abject failure of the Work programme and the Prime Minister blamed the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for the failure of enterprise zones. While Cabinet members bicker, we have a broadband network that is not connected, a job scheme that is not
	working and enterprise zones where there is no enterprise, while the only growth strategy they have is for the House of Lords.
	The Prime Minister called himself the “heir to Blair”, but is he not just the natural successor to Jim Hacker?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks about the Foreign Secretary’s statement on Palestine. I join her in paying tribute to the emergency services and the work of Environment Agency staff in supporting communities that have been so heavily damaged by flooding. I have personal knowledge of the area around Exeter and of St Asaph in north Wales; these are dreadful events for people to have to live through.
	It is terrifically important that we protect people wherever we can. That is why the Government are allocating £2.17 billion over four years. The hon. Lady will have heard the Prime Minister say yesterday, in response to questions, that we hope to leverage additional support for flood defences. She will also know from what the Prime Minister said yesterday that we continue to be in discussions with the Association of British Insurers about securing protection for householders through insurance as well. I will, of course, continue to keep closely in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about how the House can be kept informed on these matters.
	I am trying to think of anything else that the hon. Lady asked for that could be considered business of the House, but there was not much. She commented on press reports about what happened at Cabinet, but today of all days she might recognise that we should not believe everything we read in the newspapers.
	The hon. Lady mentioned the Prime Minister being an “heir to Blair”, and she talked about the appointment of peers in another place, but my recollection is that Tony Blair made 374 peers. By that standard, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been notably reticent.
	We in the House, including Opposition Members who have been in government, know that “Yes Minister”, when it was broadcast by the BBC and even today, is, in fact, a documentary programme and not a work of fiction. I am somewhat unusual in this place in having been not only my own version of Jim Hacker, but Bernard in a former life. The one thing I am not expecting to be is a Sir Humphrey at any stage. If at any point we can illustrate “Yes Minister”, I am sure we will set out to do so.
	I am grateful to the hon. Lady for talking about growth and welfare. Yesterday we had a debate about those issues. I looked at reports of past business questions for a request for an Opposition day debate on employment. Yesterday, the Opposition did talk about jobs but not about how to create them. They did not have a policy for that—it was a policy-free zone from the Labour party yesterday. What a missed opportunity. The Labour party had an opportunity to use its time to celebrate the 70-year anniversary of the Beveridge report. We could have celebrated the sense of how work is a route out of poverty and want, and how social solidarity through welfare provision is properly a way in which we can build a stronger society, as the Government are setting out to do. We could also have celebrated the contribution made by a Liberal as part of a coalition Government under a Conservative Prime Minister for the long-term benefit of this country.

Lee Scott: Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate on people who have emigrated outside the European Union yet still claim benefits such as winter fuel payments and child benefit?

Andrew Lansley: I pay tribute to the great deal of work my hon. Friend has done on this issue. As we head towards winter, it is terrifically important that we look after communities. That is one reason why I was so pleased in the past week to see the announcement of some 149 successful projects that are being supported by the Department of Health’s warm homes healthy people fund this winter, following the successful work last winter. This is in partnership with local authorities, Age UK and other charities, and I know that my hon. Friend and others across the House have been active proponents of that kind of community-based support for people at risk.

Ann Coffey: In her excellent report last week, the Children’s Commissioner identified missing episodes, visits to sexual health clinics and use of mental health services as strong indicators that a child may be being sexually abused. However, current Department of Health guidelines on sharing such health data with other agencies are creating a postcode lottery because of different interpretations at both the local and national level about what data can be shared. The situation is very concerning because some children are not being identified as being at risk, and are therefore continuing to be abused. Will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate on the Children’s Commissioner’s excellent report and the data-sharing issues it raises?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that. I read the report, as I know many hon. Members will have done. They will have been alarmed by some of the things that the deputy Children’s Commissioner had to say and will feel it is very important that we follow up on it. The House recently had an opportunity to debate child sexual exploitation, but that is not to say that there is not a case for further such opportunities. The subject she discusses is an area where the further progress we are making on the role of local safeguarding children boards in local authorities should enable us to have, among other things, better sharing of information to protect children.

Richard Fuller: In the case of the Bedford free school, the Planning Inspectorate recommended a full award of costs against Bedford borough council because of its
	“unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense”.
	May we have a debate about how councils in charge of education departments can use taxpayers’ money for school books, computers, gym equipment and improved facilities, rather than wasting it on trying to stop excellent, committed teachers from doing their job?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point very well. I know that people in Bedford feel strongly about the benefits that the Bedford free school can bring in extending choice to parents and in promoting improvements in educational standards. If he catches your eye, Mr Speaker, he may have an opportunity to raise this issue in Education questions on Monday.

Barry Sheerman: The Leader of the House will not need me to tell him that all of us are very concerned about vulnerable young people in this country. The protection of childhood is something that most of us hold dear, as do the children’s charities. May we have a debate about what we would lose if childhood was shrunk by giving children—16-year-olds—the vote? I am not against that or for it; what I want is a serious discussion in this House before we take away protections from children up to 18 and push adulthood down to 16.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that this issue is being considered by the Backbench Business Committee, on the basis of representations made to it by a number of hon. Members. Clearly I am happy for the Committee to consider whether time should be made available for such a debate.

Bob Blackman: May we have a debate on the success of our free schools policy? In my constituency, the I-Foundation has opened the first state-sponsored Hindu primary school and a secondary school. They are both so over-subscribed that capacity is having to be doubled in just two years. The I-Foundation is now launching a campaign to have five further Hindu free schools across the country, with a further five to follow. This demonstrates parental choice, both for a religious type of education and for the type of education that new organisations are providing.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend sets out a good argument both for free schools and for our taking the opportunity to celebrate the successes coming from them. That is happening around the country and often in this place we do not take enough opportunities to recognise what the successes in policies mean in practice for the populations we serve. It is not easy, as time is short in this House, but we will continue to look for where such opportunities might arise.

Nigel Dodds: May we have a statement as soon as possible on progress on the implementation of Sir John Holmes’s report on the governance principles for the award of military medals in this country, and particularly on the issue of those who served in the Arctic convoys, on which we continue to receive many representations, and the need to recognise those heroes properly through the award of a medal?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman will have noted when I announced the forthcoming business that the Backbench Business Committee has allocated time next Thursday for a debate on defence personnel. I completely understand that the breadth of issues that will need to be encompassed in that debate is very wide, but he might recognise that there is an opportunity there, not least to recognise past service.

Peter Bone: Later today we will have what I think is a unique event. The Deputy Prime Minister, whose main responsibility is to support the Prime Minister, will make a statement opposing the Prime Minister. Will the Leader of the House make an urgent statement so that the Deputy Prime Minister knows from which Dispatch Box he is to speak?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will recognise, I know, that Ministers make statements to this House on Government policy. As “Erskine May” makes clear, the reason they make statements is to explain to the House how they propose to pursue public business. As for this afternoon’s statements, it is perfectly reasonable to give an immediate response to an inquiry as wide-ranging as the Leveson inquiry in order to convey as fully as possible to the House a sense of how the coalition Government—a unique event for us—are pursuing the process of considering and responding to the report. The House will be better informed by two statements than it would have been by one alone and both are ministerial statements on Government policy.

Frank Roy: Yesterday, Lloyds Banking Group announced the closure of the call centre in Motherwell that employs 200 people. That call centre has now been moved to Glasgow city centre and, as everyone knows, it will not be convenient for many of those workers to move across west central Scotland. Will the Leader of the House give time for a statement to discuss how the banking groups treat not only their customers but their employees?

Andrew Lansley: I completely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on behalf of his constituents about the consequences of commercial decisions made by companies. He will know, not least from the points made by a number of Members during business questions, that the relationship between banking groups and their communities, as well as the service they offer to local communities, are issues of importance to Members that continue to arise. It is not just a matter for the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. Perhaps he and others might like to consider whether there is a case for a debate in Back-Bench time to raise those issues on behalf of their constituents.

Andrew Stunell: I welcome what the Leader of the House said about the 70th anniversary of the Beveridge report and I also welcome the coalition’s commitment to fairness and to ensuring that work always pays. With that in mind, may I ask for a debate on the performance of the retail banks that are failing to support small businesses in my constituency, which are eager to invest in jobs but are denied working capital?

Andrew Lansley: There is a synchronicity between the previous question and this one as regards the relationship between banks and our local communities. I sometimes share with my hon. Friend a sense of frustration about the extent to which the conventional banking system now supports small and medium-sized businesses. That is why our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, together with the Treasury, is so actively pursuing those issues, not least through the recent announcement of the operational start of the new business banking support and the support that that gives to new challenger banks to supply new innovative routes of lending to small businesses.

Kate Green: May we have a debate on the apparent abuse of the electrical equipment recycling market? Four multinationals—Sylvania, GE, Osman and Philips—appear to be seeking
	to subvert the effect of the forthcoming recast waste electrical and electronic equipment directive by operating a cartel in relation to the recycling of waste electrical equipment, which is putting the viability of independent recycling companies and local jobs, including in my constituency, at risk.

Andrew Lansley: I am interested in what the hon. Lady says, but I am sure she will understand that I am not in a position to comment on it without any direct knowledge of those issues. From her description, she should bear in mind not only the question of whether that is a suitable topic for debate in the House, but the fact that, as I know from having served on the Standing Committees of the Competition Bill and the Enterprise Bill in previous Parliaments, legislation is in place that allows her and others who have evidence to go to the Office of Fair Trading for investigation of those practices.

Alun Cairns: The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport secured appropriate terms for all mobile operators in the forthcoming auction, and significant investment has been made in fixed-line broadband throughout the whole of the UK. May we have a debate on the progress of broadband roll-out to learn about the best practice in some of the areas that have operated faster than others and to ensure that the scale and terms of those contracts are suitable to deliver competition?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. He refers to the digital switchover, which was a major programme delivered on time and under budget with few complaints about it—a very good example of collaboration. We will now have the benefit of the spectrum auction that is coming up. Through that and other routes, the broadband roll-out across the country can be a major contributor to growth. I hope it will be achieved rapidly and on time, and in a way that is stimulated by competition.

Luciana Berger: Jo Darling is a full-time carer in my constituency, while also studying for a PhD. However, she is unable to access carer’s allowance because she is a full-time student, and she is unable to work because of her caring responsibilities. She has only a £6,000 a year scholarship to live off and is deeply worried that she will have to give up her studies because she is struggling to get by. May we have a statement on what steps the Government will take to provide proper support to wonderful carers like Jo, who are both full-time students and full-time carers?

Andrew Lansley: If the hon. Lady wishes me to do so, I will be glad to ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions to comment on the specifics of the individual case. Carer’s allowance is intended to be an allowance in relation to the loss of potential for earnings. If somebody is in full-time education, by definition one cannot justify carer’s allowance to that extent. On support for carers generally, the House has just agreed the establishment of a Joint Committee to consider the draft Care and Support Bill, which includes the most important legislative measures ever presented to give a basis of support for carers.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) has wandered almost like a nomad, albeit all at one end of the Chamber, across three Benches, but I hope he is now comfortably perched and ready to give the House the benefit of his thoughts.

Rob Wilson: I thank you for that kind introduction, Mr Speaker. Following the publication of yesterday’s Ofsted report on the performance of local education authorities, may we have a debate in Government time about why some LEAs, such as Reading, are so much worse at providing, for example, primary school education than either surrounding authorities or demographically comparable local education authorities?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. We might examine that. He might like to raise the matter at Education questions on Monday, but in any case it is an illustration of the benefits that come from the transparency of the publication of data. In a number of fields, including education, that enables us and the public to examine unwarranted variation between different parts of the country, and to try to drive out poor performance and drive up good performance.

Valerie Vaz: May I raise again the issue of a signal-controlled crossing on Darlaston road in my constituency? A four-year-old child was knocked over and suffered serious head injuries, and a woman suffered a fractured pelvis—all this on the crossing. Three hundred local people have signed a petition, yet the council refuses to upgrade the crossing to a signal-controlled crossing. I have written to everybody—the Department for Transport, the council—and still they refuse. Can the Leader of the House use his good offices to point me in the right direction, perhaps with an urgent debate, or tell me where to go next before there is a death on the crossing?

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry to hear that about the hon. Lady’s constituents, with whom I am sure we all sympathise. I will of course take the opportunity to talk with colleagues, not least in the Department for Transport, because I know from experience in my constituency that the lead for that comes best through the Department to Network Rail. I will be happy to correspond with the Department on that.

Andrew Bridgen: May I ask my right hon. Friend again for a debate on the conduct of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and its handling of allegations of child abuse in north Wales? A report issued last weekend by the bureau’s trustees sought to whitewash their responsibility for the widely discredited “Newsnight” report on the matter. The licence fee payer now faces a bill of £185,000 in damages, but many would argue that the main responsibility lies with the shoddy journalism of the bureau’s chief reporter, Angus Stickler. I believe that the bureau bears equal responsibility; surely it should share the BBC’s costs.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on the allocation of those costs. Technically, these are matters not for the Government but for the BBC and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. He will share my desire for the BBC to make rapid progress
	with the Pollard review and publish it in full so that the public can see what was done in relation to the “Newsnight” report.

Diana Johnson: Continuing the “Yes Minister” theme, more than a month ago I personally delivered 300 letters from constituents about flooding insurance to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I raised the issue with the Leader of the House a few weeks ago, because I had received no acknowledgement or response. Yesterday, I had a telephone call from the Secretary of State’s private office to tell me that they could not find the 300 letters. Will the Leader of the House advise me on what I should do next?

Andrew Lansley: I will be happy to continue to talk with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Lady will be aware from my right hon. Friend’s recent statement, and indeed from Prime Minister’s questions, that we have been in active negotiations with the Association of British Insurers and are determined to bring the matter to a successful conclusion.

David Nuttall: May we please have a debate on the operation of free markets so that I and others who oppose the Government’s plans to introduce minimum pricing for alcohol and regard it as yet another unnecessary extension of the nanny state can put our views on the record?

Andrew Lansley: I have never found my hon. Friend backwards in coming forward to make his views known, and I am sure that opportunities for him to do so will present themselves. With regard to the minimum unit price for alcohol, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published on behalf of the Government a consultative document yesterday. The Government are clear that a minimum unit price will contribute to tackling the deep-seated issues related to binge drinking and alcohol abuse. A report published by the chief medical officer only the week before last shows that this country has such a high relative level of death from liver disease, and the level is rising while in other countries it is falling. That tells us that we have to do something.

Jim Cunningham: When will we have a debate or a statement on the ombudsman’s report on the use of bailiffs by the courts and local authorities?

Andrew Lansley: I have no knowledge of an immediate opportunity for such a debate, but I will of course look at whether there is any opportunity for an oral or written statement in due course.

Lorely Burt: Experiencing the death of a loved one is sadly inevitable for us all, but dealing with the funeral costs can come as a very unwelcome shock for many. The social fund payment has substantially devalued over the years and many families find themselves deep in debt despite being eligible for a payment. May we have a debate on how we can help families provide a dignified funeral for a loved one without adding further financial stress at a difficult time?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point that she may wish to raise on Monday week in Department for Work and Pensions questions. I know from my former ministerial responsibilities that we are continuing to consider how the cost of death certification, which is a significant part of the overall costs, is to be met in future, in order if possible not to add to the burdens that people face when they are bereaved. In addition, I will ask my hon. Friends in the Department to correspond with her about how they are considering those issues.

Andy Sawford: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the role of employment agencies in local labour markets? That is of huge concern in Corby and east Northamptonshire, where too many people find that they are on zero-hours contracts with no guarantees of work, even though they may have travelled some distance or at some cost to get to their place of work, and are often on low wages. There is also a big concern about employment agencies often recruiting from overseas rather than making sure that local people can get into work.

Andrew Lansley: It is a pleasure to welcome the hon. Gentleman to business questions. I noted that he had a very successful maiden speech in last week’s debate on manufacturing industry—an important debate in which we welcomed him to our deliberations.
	On the hon. Gentleman’s question, he might like to consider raising that issue at Work and Pensions questions. The agency workers directive will have some effect, and I will be happy to find out a little more about its impact on his local labour market and to correspond with him.

Jason McCartney: The West Yorkshire fire and rescue integrated management action plan proposes the closure of Marsden fire station. In recent years there have been widespread fires up on Marsden moors and a major fire at a chemical factory just up the valley in Linthwaite. Does my right hon. Friend agree that West Yorkshire fire authority and the management plan need to take into account all these local factors when making these tough decisions?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is the responsibility of fire and rescue authorities to make such decisions. As he knows, they are required to have in place fire and rescue service integrated risk management plans to identify local needs and to tackle existing and potential risks to communities. That should create a more transparent approach to how they use their resources to evaluate and respond to risk, and it is the context in which my hon. Friend can hold them to account in doing so.

Jonathan Ashworth: I am pleased that the Leader of the House has found time to reschedule the debate on the expulsion of Ugandan Asians, which many of my constituents will follow with great interest.
	Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on investment in the east midlands regional economy? Recent figures show that we are apparently bottom of the list for regional growth fund allocations, while other figures show that we not doing as well as we perhaps
	should as regards other types of Government investment. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would appreciate the opportunity to lobby Ministers in such a debate.

Andrew Lansley: Although I announce the business, I cannot entirely take credit—

Thomas Docherty: It was my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel).

Andrew Lansley: I am coming to that. The Backbench Business Committee should take credit for allocating time initially and finding additional time next week for the debate on the anniversary of the expulsion of Ugandan Asians, and I am glad about that.
	A number of Members in different regions have sought Adjournment debates to discuss their regional economies. The House will welcome that, as will the Government, because such debates provide an opportunity for us to demonstrate how the regional growth fund and our industrial strategy are leading to increases in employment across the country and a rebalancing of our economy, as was discussed in last week’s debate on manufacturing.

John Glen: The extraordinary levels of rainfall over the past week have caused the banks of the River Avon to burst. Local residents, National Farmers Union members and farmers in Britford have been warning that that would be likely as a result of stopping weed cutting in the river. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how local expertise can be listened to in order to avoid changes in regulations that allow these risks to become much higher, as we have seen this week?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point on behalf of his constituents. What happened will have been very concerning for them. It is important that the Environment Agency and local authorities take a proactive approach. After the flooding in my constituency in October 2001, the local authorities and parishes, the Environment Agency, I as the Member of Parliament and others met to establish a programme to deal with precisely the risks that he mentions. I would have far preferred it if we had done that proactively, rather than waiting until the flooding had demonstrated where the risks were greatest.

Fiona Mactaggart: When the Government opted into the EU directive on human trafficking they claimed that the role of an independent rapporteur could be fulfilled by the interdepartmental ministerial group. Some of us queried that. The group produced its first report on 18 October. As yet, there is no sign of this House having an opportunity to debate it. Will the Leader of the House ensure that Parliament has an opportunity to debate the report on human trafficking?

Andrew Lansley: I will, of course, look at whether there is an opportunity for such a debate. The hon. Lady may also wish to discuss the possibility with the Backbench Business Committee. I will gladly consider with my colleagues whether we can create such an opportunity.

Andrew Stephenson: Pendle’s young entrepreneur of the year, 26-year-old Simon Mellin, has established a bistro and farm shop with his younger brother. Roaming Roosters opened just a few months ago, but is already employing 30 members of staff. With the help of Pendle borough council and Nelson and Colne college, Roaming Roosters ran the “Can you hack it?” programme, which saw 10 young people compete for two butchery apprenticeships in the firm. Simon is now helping the other eight youngsters to find work with local businesses. May we have a debate about apprenticeships so that all MPs across the House can cite innovative examples from their constituencies and discuss the Government’s progress in this area?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Today, not least, it is good to have a different reference to hacking—in this case in relation to butchery. That example shows how apprenticeships are being made available in small and medium-sized businesses, and is a signal of how we can create jobs in the future. In the past, jobs have come overwhelmingly from small and medium-sized businesses and from growing businesses. If apprentices are able to find such places, they will be able to secure the jobs of the future. That is why it is encouraging that 950,000 apprenticeships have started in the past two years with 100,000 employers in 160,000 locations. I hope that what my hon. Friend describes is just one of many such schemes that we will be able to support.

Thomas Docherty: Yesterday afternoon, during the emergency business statement, the Leader of the House stated, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), that the Prime Minister would be speaking for the Government, not just the Conservative part of the Government. What on earth has changed? Who will be speaking for the Government this afternoon?

Andrew Lansley: I thought that I had made that clear in response to an earlier question. Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister will be making statements this afternoon on behalf of the Government—they are ministerial statements.

Oliver Colvile: As my right hon. Friend may know, at least 12 male Members of Parliament and a number of the House’s staff are taking part in “Movember” to raise awareness and money for prostate cancer charities. I am doing so on behalf of the Chestnut Appeal in Devon and Cornwall. May we have a debate to discuss the importance of tackling prostate cancer?

Andrew Lansley: We are now right at the end of “Movember”, so this is an opportunity to thank my hon. Friend, other colleagues and members of the House service who have given such a splendid tonsorial display in support of research into better treatments for prostate cancer, testicular cancer and so on. Members from across the House will know of friends or loved ones who have suffered from prostate cancer. There are real opportunities, both through earlier diagnosis and in the development of further treatments. Treatments such as brachytherapy and robotic
	surgery have improved significantly the chances of those who suffer from prostate cancer, and there is more that we can achieve.

Mr Speaker: The Leader of the House would probably like to lead an Adjournment debate on that matter. He would do so with great force and eloquence, and possibly at some length.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for drawing attention to our letters to the Environment Secretary about flooding. Since there is cross-departmental responsibility for flood issues, will the Leader of the House call for an early debate, potentially with three Ministers to respond? There is the matter outstanding from the 2007 floods of sustainable drainage systems, recovery under the Bellwin formula and whether capital expenditure will be extended to roads and bridges, as well as reservoir safety guidance. In a week in which North Yorkshire suffered its second worst flooding since 2007, will the Leader of the House commit to a debate to which three Secretaries of State could respond: from DEFRA—

Mr Speaker: Order. This is too long. I am sorry but the hon. Lady is giving a dissertation. I am sure it is very interesting, but it is not a question.

Andrew Lansley: None the less, Mr Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. Friend whose expertise and responsibilities on this issue are important. I cannot commit to a debate in the way she proposes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made a statement and, as I have said, I will continue to discuss with him about how and when he can update the House most appropriately. He will address on behalf of the Government all issues related to flooding, including those raised by other hon. Friends.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has announced local authority access to the Bellwin scheme that will deliver reimbursement above the threshold for up to 85% of their costs.

Marcus Jones: Construction work recently started on a project to lengthen the runway at Birmingham airport, and a project facilitated by the regional growth fund will open the west midlands to emerging markets and create many new jobs in our region. May we have a debate on the role of Birmingham airport and its place in the west midlands regional economy, and on how we expect the regional growth fund to expand that economy?

Andrew Lansley: Yes—I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and as we discuss airport capacity we can continue to debate and reflect on how to improve and use the capacity available in regional airports. From my experience
	in a previous life as deputy director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, I know there are many unrealised opportunities for regional airports to be hubs for economic growth.

Mr Speaker: We have got the gist. I call Mr Andrew Jones.

Andrew Jones: The UK internet economy is forecast to grow to 12% of our GDP by 2016. North Yorkshire is well placed to capitalise on that growth through its leadership of the broadband roll-out and its Superfast North Yorkshire project. May we have a debate on the digital economy and what progress we can make on that, as it is critical to future economic growth?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right, and across the country the Government are actively pursuing access to fast broadband so that every part of the country can have the economic stimulus that it provides, the social interconnections it sometimes enables, and better delivery of public services. I hope we will have a competition, because different places across the country are proceeding at different paces—from my experience, I am sure that North Yorkshire will be among those at the forefront of such a competition.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Andrew Jones.

Andrew Jones: I have just asked my question.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has asked his question. We are grateful to him and I should not have forgotten quite so quickly. I am sure that it was otherwise extremely memorable; it was entirely my fault.

Stephen Gilbert: rose —

Martin Horwood: rose—

Mr Speaker: I am sorry to disappoint the Liberal Democrat Members. I note their enthusiasm and eagerness but unfortunately neither hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the start of the session so neither of them can speak.

Martin Horwood: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. He was not here and that is the end of the matter.
	We come now to the statement on energy. [Interruption.] [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] We are grateful to the Secretary of State for Energy who has arrived in the nick of time. I am sure he would have been very happy for the statement to be delivered by the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), but it will be delivered by the Secretary of State.

Energy Policy

Edward Davey: Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you and the House for your patience.
	I am pleased, ahead of the Energy Bill’s introduction later today, to publish the annual energy statement. It shows that this Government are making good progress towards our vision of a thriving low-carbon economy with secure energy supplies, and sets out an energy policy that is good for growth and for consumers. Alongside the annual energy statement, I am publishing our energy security strategy, the statutory security of supply report, a consultation on electricity demand reduction, and more detail on electricity market reform. I am today laying copies of all those documents before the House.
	Britain’s energy sector is embarking on a period of exceptional renewal and expansion. The scale of the investment required is huge, representing close to half the UK’s total infrastructure investment pipeline. The electricity sector alone needs investment of around £110 billion in the next decade—that is equivalent to building Crossrail seven times over—but the vast majority of it will not be taxpayers’ money, with Government subsidies targeted at levering in private sector investment in low-carbon energy, so our plans are consistent with our overriding goal of deficit reduction.
	The energy sector can play a major role in stimulating economic growth, creating jobs and positioning British companies for success in export markets. One third of the UK’s economic growth in the last financial year is likely to have come from green business, and the UK’s low-carbon sector now takes a £122 billion share of a global market worth £3.3 trillion. Many projects are shovel-ready, and they are spread relatively evenly through every nation and region of the UK, so the stimulus to the economy and to supply chains, and the job creation, can come at the right time, which is now, and in the right place, which is nationwide.
	Those short-term benefits of our transition to a low-carbon future are followed by still greater ones in the longer term. First, of course, our transition will help us to meet our carbon budgets on the path to our 2050 emissions target, so that Britain will continue to play a leading role in tackling climate change. Secondly, it will diversify our energy mix, improving our energy security, and insulating households and business consumers from high and volatile fossil fuel prices on global markets. Thirdly, it will keep British companies at the forefront of the fast-growing global green sector.
	However, investment on the scale needed will not happen under the current framework. Industry and investors have told the Government very clearly that we must play our part, by creating a regulatory framework against which they can invest, and by giving clarity on the level of incentives available. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity. We need those shovel-ready projects to get under way now, and the energy security challenge we face is real, with fossil fuel imports set to increase, electricity demand to rise, and around a fifth of our existing power plant to close by 2020.
	We therefore propose nothing less than the biggest transformation of Britain’s electricity market since privatisation. That follows agreement across the coalition,
	not only on electricity market reform and the Energy Bill, but on a real-terms tripling of the budget for support for low-carbon generation.
	We need to improve revenue certainty for investors in low-carbon generation, including renewables, nuclear power, and carbon capture and storage, so we will take powers in the Energy Bill to introduce feed-in tariffs with contracts for difference. That mechanism will give investors precisely the confidence they seek. We have also responded to Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change concerns and will create a single counter-party for the contracts for difference.
	We will also introduce a capacity market to ensure that there is sufficient gas generation to provide the back-up and flexibility we will need. Gas remains a vital part of our energy mix, and we will support the exploitation of unconventional gas resources where it is economic and can be carried out with full protection of the environment. Our gas generation strategy will be published alongside the autumn statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
	We will legislate to allow the Government in the next Parliament to set a 2030 decarbonisation target for the power sector, and in the shorter term we will introduce an emissions performance standard. That will ensure that new coal plant can be built only with carbon capture and storage technology. All those mechanisms will be supported by a robust, transparent institutional framework. The reforms will maintain Britain’s energy security while providing a huge opportunity for jobs and growth. Competition for long-term contracts will drive innovation, raise productivity and give UK industries a strong platform from which to compete internationally.
	Consumer bills are one of my greatest concerns. They have been driven up remorselessly by wholesale fossil fuel prices: global gas prices were 50% higher in the five years to 2011 than in the previous five years, and they have continued to rise in the past year. High energy bills can put huge pressure on households and businesses, so let me be very clear, especially given recent misleading reports in the media: Government policy is designed specifically to reduce consumer bills. Of course, we cannot control global commodity markets. However, we can and will put consumers in control by driving a wedge between wholesale energy prices and consumer bills. That is why we propose to legislate in the Energy Bill to ensure that consumers are placed on the cheapest tariff that meets their preferences.
	We can and will diversify our energy supplies: our policies stand to reduce the UK’s sensitivity to fossil fuel price spikes by approximately 30% by 2020, and by around 60% by 2050. We can and will push energy companies to make switching easier and quicker—households can already save up to £200 per year simply by switching provider. We can and will pursue savings wherever we can find them in the energy system—for example, up to £3.5 billion from offshore transmission co-ordination. We can and will continue to place energy efficiency front and centre. More than 2 million insulation measures were installed in the year to June 2012. The savings are considerable: the 500,000 households who insulated their cavity walls in 2011 are each saving approximately £135 per year. Last month, we put in place the framework for the green deal, which allows households and businesses to install energy efficiency measures without any upfront cost, and to pay for them through the savings on their energy bill.
	If we look ahead to energy bills in 2020, we see that energy efficiency savings are set to outweigh—more than outweigh—the cost of supporting low-carbon electricity generation. The net effect of Government policies on energy bills is downwards, not upwards. Of course, vulnerable households need our help now, and they are getting it. More than 1 million low-income pensioners will get £130 off their fuel bills this winter, and all pensioner households will get a winter fuel payment of £200, or £300 for those over 80 years old. Energy suppliers provided approximately £250 million of support under the warm home discount scheme in 2011-12, assisting about 2 million low-income and vulnerable households. The new energy company obligation will channel £540 million-worth of green deal investment per year, reaching approximately 270,000 vulnerable and low-income households and those living in harder-to-treat properties by 2015. To help people better manage their own energy use, we will be rolling out smart meters across Great Britain: 53 million new meters will be installed by 2019, delivering an estimated £7.2 billion in net benefits to the economy.
	The heated debate on energy policy can sometimes obscure what is in many ways a great success story for our country. The UK already leads the world in offshore wind, and we are on track to meet our renewables targets. Energy investment in Britain is running at a 20-year high, according to Energy UK. We have the world’s first renewable heat incentive. This year’s offshore oil and gas licensing round received the highest number of applications since licensing began in 1964. Our carbon capture and storage offer, including the £1 billion commercialisation competition, is one of the world’s most comprehensive.
	We continue to make progress in international talks on climate change. I will shortly be attending the C0P 18 talks in Doha, working towards the genuinely global deal to which Durban opened the door, to be agreed by 2015 and to come into force from 2020. We are now preparing a once in a generation transformation of the energy landscape to bring on massive private-sector investment, which will boost the economy, create jobs, and power Britain towards a prosperous low-carbon future.
	The Government’s energy policy is good for the British economy, good for consumers and good for the planet, and I commend the statement to the House.

Caroline Flint: I thank the Secretary of State for early notice of his statement. I was going to say that I felt deprived at not getting two statements—one from the Secretary of State and one from the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes)—because that seems to be the usual manner of doing things this afternoon, but I think we were lucky just to get one. The Secretary of State can catch his breath now.
	I have always made it clear that where we can work with the Government in the national interest, we will do so. In that vein, the Secretary of State will know that we have supported the Government’s efforts to attract investment in new nuclear, and we welcome Hitachi’s
	decision to buy the Horizon nuclear project. We also welcome the progress made in Durban last year and wish our negotiators in Doha well. It is with genuine regret, however, that over the past year we have seen the Government lurch from one crisis to another on many aspects of energy policy, from the disastrous handling of the cuts to the feed-in tariff for solar power, to the recent outburst on wind power from the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, and, I am afraid, the Prime Minister’s broken promises on energy bills. The Department has done more than its fair share to get the word “omnishambles” in the “Oxford English Dictionary”.
	Today, alongside the statement, the Secretary of State is also publishing the Government’s long-awaited Energy Bill. His Department’s press notice helpfully reminds us that the Bill has faced repeated delays, which I believe has undermined confidence and left much investment in limbo. We will of course look carefully at the Bill and the other proposals the Government have published today on demand reduction, energy security and energy-intensive industries, and I look forward to debating them more fully with the Secretary of State in due course.
	I want to pick up on two aspects of the Secretary of State’s announcement and ask him some specific questions: first, on the state of competition in the energy market and, secondly, on the Government’s failure to set a clear target to decarbonise the power sector. This time last year, when the Secretary of State’s predecessor delivered the annual energy statement, he said that people’s bills would be lower during this Parliament. Families and businesses up and down the country that have seen their bills rise by more than £250 know that that is just not true. In response, the Government launched their “click, switch and insulate to save” campaign, but the number of people switching suppliers fell to record lows.
	The Secretary of State talked about energy efficiency, but next year this Administration will become the first since the 1970s not to have a Government-funded energy efficiency scheme. The Prime Minister told the House that he would force the energy companies by law to put everyone on the lowest tariff, but it turned out that all the Government are really doing is limiting the number of tariffs those companies can offer. The simple truth is that even the lowest tariff in an uncompetitive market will not be a good deal.
	The Secretary of State says that the burden of investment will not fall on taxpayers, but it will fall on bill payers, and, at a time when we are asking them to pay for as much as £200 billion of investment in our energy infrastructure, it is more important than ever that we have an energy market that delivers fair prices and works in the public interest. For too long, the big energy companies have been able to get away with what they want at the expense of everyone else. Those big companies dominate 98% of the market and, decades after privatisation, still have a virtual monopoly in their former electricity regions. They tell us that electricity and gas prices in the UK are among the lowest in Europe, but when tax is taken out of the equation, they are among the highest. Most damning of all, whenever these companies announce their price hikes, they tell us they are only passing on their costs, so why is it that when those costs come down, consumers rarely see the savings?
	Whether or not the allegations of price fixing in the gas market turn out to be true, they clearly show that the market is not transparent enough. Let me, then, ask the Secretary of State three very straightforward questions: first, does he believe that there is effective competition in either the wholesale or the retail energy market? Secondly, whether consumers get a fair deal will largely depend on the strike price the Government set for contracts for difference and the reference price in the market at the time, but if the market is structured in such a way that no one knows what the true cost of energy actually is, how will the Government even be able to set a robust strike price? Thirdly, given that the proposals were originally called “electricity market reform”, why does the new Bill fail to make proposals on how energy is bought and sold in order to make it more open, more transparent and more competitive?
	This morning, I looked through the “Electricity market reform: policy overview” document. In paragraph 101, there is an indication that the Government are perhaps beginning to recognise that greater competition is necessary, in its reference to
	“Powers for the Secretary of State to make changes to electricity generation and supply licences conditions”.
	That is quite interesting. Does it indicate that the Secretary of State is moving closer to some of the more radical suggestions for reforming the market which Labour has been putting forward for the past two years and which were referred to in our 2010 manifesto?
	The Secretary of State said that investment was running at a 20-year high, but independent figures produced by Bloomberg New Energy Finance show that since this Government came to power, investment in renewable energy has fallen by more than half. He also said that the UK led the world in offshore wind, but figures out just today from Ernst and Young on renewable energy attractiveness show that, for the first time ever, the UK has been knocked off the top spot for offshore wind attractiveness and is now behind Germany. The reason that has happened is the uncertainty the Government have created. That is why firms have put investment on hold or scrapped it altogether.
	In June, Vestas abandoned its plans to create a new manufacturing plant in Kent, which would have created 2,000 jobs. What did the local Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), who is now Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), say at the time? She said that Vestas’ decision
	“suggests a lack of confidence within the industry over the government’s commitment to the green economy and crucially, offshore wind. The market needs certainty from government if it is to deliver the thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of investment that could secure our economic recovery.”
	Whether onshore or offshore, the business of firms such as Vestas is wind. What they wanted more than anything else in the Bill was a clear commitment to decarbonise the power sector by 2030. Just this morning, its chief executive told The  Guardian:
	“The failure to establish a firm 2030 power sector carbon cap prolongs uncertainty.”
	In his words,
	“This is a significant missed opportunity,”
	and he is not alone in thinking that.
	It is not just businesses in the renewables sector but those elsewhere that are concerned about the Government’s lack of vision. I make no bones about it: we support a clear decarbonisation target in the Bill—and from what I read in this morning’s papers, so do many hon. Members on the Government Benches, including the Chair of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change. When the time comes, we will work with colleagues across the House to put a decarbonisation target in the Bill.

Edward Davey: I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s initial remarks. I am delighted that she wants to work with the Government to attract investment and that she wishes us well in the Doha talks next week. I hope we can reach a cross-party consensus on some of these important measures to tackle climate change, which is incredibly important. Both coalition parties gave that support to the last Government, for their Climate Change Act 2008, and I hope we can continue that consensus.
	The right hon. Lady said that the Bill had been delayed. Ever since I have been Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, I have said it would be published in November and it has been. We are on time and on track. She asked a number of questions, but gave no recognition to the fact that two parties that have had their disagreements have come together with an energy policy. She also failed to mention how that has been received by industry and the investor community. The director general of the CBI, John Cridland, gave a ringing endorsement to the policies that we have announced, after the discussions I had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That political certainty, backed with the policy certainty of today’s announcement, will bring the billions of pounds of investment into the UK that our economy and our energy infrastructure needs.
	The right hon. Lady asked me about competition. One almost thinks that she is suffering from amnesia, because it was the previous Government who failed to tackle competition. We are determined to tackle it, but we will not be using ideas from the Labour party’s manifesto, because we have our own ideas on how to ensure competition in the retail sector, with our arguments about switching, and in the wholesale sector, with our arguments about greater liquidity and transparency in that market. Of course we have competitive markets, but they could be more competitive. We are determined to drive them further and faster, and our policies will do far more than the ones she is offering the country.
	The right hon. Lady questioned our new policies on tariffs, which will simplify them in a way that I believe will drive competition. Time and again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) asked the previous Government to simplify tariffs, to drive competition in the consumer’s interest, and what did they do? Absolutely nothing. We will take no lessons from her on that matter.
	The right hon. Lady asked about strike prices. She does not seem to understand how they will be set, so let me explain, although we will no doubt do this on Second Reading of the Bill. They will be set administratively until 2017; then they will be set through auctions. Auctions are the way to get the real transparency and competition that the previous Government failed to deliver.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the decarbonisation target. That has been a matter of some debate within the Government, and there will no doubt be a debate on
	it between Members on both sides during the passage of the Bill. I looked at the 2010 manifestos of all the parties—the Green party, the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives—to see what promises they had made on a decarbonisation target for the power sector. None of us had made any. There were no such promises in the coalition agreement either, but since becoming Secretary of State, I have gone into the discussions determined to make that argument. I have done so, and we will table amendments to the Bill to give the Secretary of State power to set a decarbonisation target. I am proud of that.
	The right hon. Lady said that without a decarbonisation target, we would see no investment in the supply chain. I simply refer her to Arriva’s announcement last week on a turbine factory. The weeks and months ahead will show whether we will see that supply chain investment. I believe that we will, because this coalition Government have put the right policies in place.

Peter Lilley: Lord Stern, whose discredited report still forms the rationale for the Government’s energy policy, calculated in 2006 the amount by which the price of hydrocarbons needed to be increased in order to decarbonise the economy. Since then, the price of hydrocarbons has risen faster and further than either Lord Stern or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change thought sufficient, so why does my right hon. Friend propose to pile Pelion upon Ossa by burdening British industry and households with these tripled taxes?

Edward Davey: My right hon. Friend has been consistent: he voted against the Climate Change Act 2008 and he clearly does not like our low-carbon policies today. The fact that fossil fuel prices have gone up is yet another argument for our policies. We need to insulate our economy, our consumers and our businesses from those high prices. This country has to import far more fossil fuels than we used to because North sea resources are going down, and that is leaving our economy exposed. We need to tackle that issue for reasons of energy security and to ensure that we have competitive prices.

Joan Ruddock: The Secretary of State is obviously very pleased with himself about the tariffs, but will he acknowledge that he has failed to deliver what the Prime Minister promised, which was to put everybody on the lowest tariff? Given that he has not done that, will he consider making a concession to over-75-year-olds, who could save £200 a year by being on the lowest tariff? The 3,500 pensioners in my constituency would greatly appreciate that.

Edward Davey: First, we want to give the benefits of switching to everybody, not just to pensioners. Hard-working families are struggling, and we want to ensure that they get the benefits as well. As for the Prime Minister’s commitment to get people on to the cheapest tariffs, we are delivering that. Ofgem’s retail market review of the four core tariffs will ensure that people who are on stranded or dead tariffs will automatically be switched to the lowest tariff, given their preferences. I would have thought that the Opposition would want to ensure that people are on the lowest tariff, because it
	will bring them big savings and ensure that their preferences —whether on payment or other things—are recognised. That is the best of both worlds.

Robert Smith: The Secretary of State mentioned the important role that he sees gas still playing in the transition to the low-carbon economy. Will he give me an assurance that the record licensing round that he has just announced is an indication of the Government’s continued commitment to maximising the remaining potential of our North sea assets?

Edward Davey: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Sometimes the debate is characterised as a choice between gas and renewables, but we need both. That is particularly important as coal-fired power stations go off line. The gas power stations that replace them will help to cut our carbon emissions. It is absolutely right for our country’s energy security and prosperity that we maximise the potential of the North sea and, indeed, the other offshore fields, particularly those west of Shetland, and we will do that.

Ian Lavery: Can the Secretary of State explain why the Government have decided not to fund the Hatfield project in South Yorkshire, which was the top priority for the European Commission, and to cast it aside by failing to include it on the list of future carbon capture and storage projects?

Edward Davey: Right hon. and hon. Members will know there has been a competition to secure the support that the Government offer for carbon capture and storage. We had eight applications, and we had some rigorous criteria which differed from those of the European Union—ours were more suitable for this country and our energy needs—and which were applied rigorously, robustly and fairly. We have now moved on to the second round. Of course, there will always be some losers—not all eight applicants can win—but we are applying the criteria fairly and robustly.

Charles Hendry: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on both his statement and the Bill, and I urge him to do all he can to take energy policy out of politics, because investors need to know that there is cross-party support and support across Government for the measures he is introducing for the longer term. In that respect, given the absence of a decarbonisation target in the Bill, how does he intend to reassure investors who need to make investment decisions during this Parliament that there will be a long-term market for the products we want them to build here?

Edward Davey: I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend: I believe Members of all parties know what a critical role he played in shaping the Energy Bill that is published today. Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), he worked across the parties to bring these proposals forward, and he deserves a huge amount of credit today. I am determined, having made this agreement in the coalition, that we send out a signal—not just to the UK or Europe, but to the whole world—that the UK is open for energy investment. We have built a consensus in the UK Government, and in view of the remarks of the right
	hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), I believe we may well secure cross-party consensus, which would be valuable to this country and its people. My hon. Friend asked how we will continue the consensus. Let us see how we make progress during proceedings on the Bill, in Committee and so forth. I know that my hon. Friend will play his role in making that happen.

Michael Weir: We, too, welcome the publication of the Energy Bill, much of which we can probably support. If gas is to continue to be an important part of the energy mix, however, it is essential that carbon capture and storage is brought forward quickly. There has been some speculation in the specialist press that the UK Government have missed the European Union’s target for submitting details to ensure funding. Can the Secretary of State assure us that this is not the case, and that CCS will be brought forward quickly?

Edward Davey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, as having cross-party consensus is so important, in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. As he knows, I think Scotland is stronger in the United Kingdom and that the United Kingdom is stronger with Scotland in it, not least on energy policy. On CCS, we are pursuing our policies as quickly as we can, but we need to make sure that we get value for money for the taxpayer. We were fortunate to have eight applications; we have now whittled that down to four, and we are proceeding apace to choose between those remaining four. It is true that we did not get in the first round of the New Entrants Reserve 300 funding from the EU, but we are wholly able to get into the second round and get the same amount of money. I have spoken to the European Commissioner about that. I see no problem in ensuring that we use the money put aside to get the best value for money for the best CCS projects.

Liam Fox: The Government have talked a lot about green energy generation, but I would like to ask the Secretary of State about green energy transmission. A number of countries in Europe are now removing the scars from their countryside of pylons and overhead lines, and there is a wonderful opportunity for us to leave a great environmental legacy to future generations—not least in my North Somerset constituency, where this is a problem. What does the Bill say about green transmission? If it says nothing, I can tell the Secretary of State that a number of Members on both sides of the House will be more than happy to amend it.

Edward Davey: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question. I know that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) have been campaigning in Somerset on the new transmission lines proposed by National Grid. He will know that there is a settled approach whereby National Grid consults widely and tries to take concerns into account. This is not a new issue arising from green energy; it has been an issue for many decades. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, is working hard and I am sure that he would be more than happy to have a meeting with my right hon. Friend.

John Robertson: May I give the Secretary of State some advice? He would gain a lot more cross-party support if stopped this petty point-scoring.
	The right hon. Gentleman did not mention poor and vulnerable customers in his statement. They are the customers who do not talk to the energy companies and who need people to go and see them. What will he do to ensure that representatives of the energy companies go and find those vulnerable people so that they can help them?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman always gives me a courteous and charming welcome when I appear before the Select Committee of which he is a distinguished member. However, I did refer to vulnerable customers in my statement. They are absolutely at the heart of our policy and at the heart of my concerns as I develop that policy. I have made it clear to the energy companies that I expect them to work hard, as the Government are working hard, to ensure that we reach out to people in fuel poverty.

John Baron: I congratulate the Government and indeed Ofgem on having accepted the key recommendation of the billing stakeholder group, which the Government asked me to chair, that energy companies should make clear in their bills how much their customers would save in pounds and pence if they were on their supplier’s cheapest standard direct debit tariff. That recommendation is open for consultation, and the energy companies do not like it. May I encourage the Secretary of State to do what he can to ensure that they do not push back on it?

Edward Davey: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he has done. He is absolutely right: we must stand up against people who prevent us from pursuing the consumer interest. It was ignored for far too long, but we are not going to ignore it. One of our reasons for arranging the consultation was that, although Ofgem could proceed with its own work and change licence conditions relating to bills and what is on them, we wanted to provide a statutory underpinning—a back-stop—to ensure that the process took place as quickly and smoothly as possible. I think that that is sending a very strong signal.

Alan Whitehead: Does the Secretary of State share my regret that, despite the 18-month gestation of the Energy Bill, a consultation paper on the possibility of its including provisions on energy efficiency and demand-side management was not published until today? Will he undertake to rectify that omission by ensuring that the consultation proceeds as speedily as possible, and that amendments are tabled as early as possible, so that the House can debate the matter during the Bill’s passage rather than its being tacked on at the end when the debate is over?

Edward Davey: I am very proud that we have arranged a consultation on electricity demand reduction. Other Governments have continually ducked the issue, but our Government will not, because this could make a major difference to the way in which our energy policy works. There could be great savings for the economy, for businesses and for consumers if we get it right.
	I urge the hon. Gentleman to engage in the consultation. We do not have a firm proposal, but we have a set of options on which people can comment, and if legislation is required as a result, we will legislate.

Nick Harvey: I commend my right hon. Friend on his statement and on the work he is doing to tackle climate change, but may I urge him to review the encouragement that his Department is giving to the industrial-scale burning of wood to generate energy? Will he make time to read a recent report by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace entitled “Dirtier than coal? Why Government plans to subsidise burning trees are bad news for the planet”? Will he also note the way in which the Scottish Government are using the planning and subsidy regimes to protect the environment, protect existing users of wood, and ensure that help is directed at small community-scale biomass rather than industrial-scale plants?

Edward Davey: I shall be happy to read that report, but I have considered the issue and I have to say that I think that the conversion of coal-fired power stations to biomass will have a beneficial effect on the UK’s carbon emissions. As my hon. Friend will know, a consultation is taking place on sustainability criteria relating to biomass energy. I believe that it will close on 30 November, and obviously we will respond to it.

Albert Owen: As a consistent pro-nuclear, pro-renewables and pro-energy efficiency Member, I welcome the announcement as an important step forward—although I have to say that the decarbonisation issue will be seen for what it is: a political fudge. Does the Secretary of State intend to table amendments to the Bill soon, so that Members have a chance to see them before Second Reading and we can have a proper debate, rather than have them hidden away in Committee where only a small group will debate them? Also, has the Secretary of State had time to respond to the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s recommendations?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is a very well informed and very talented Member, and I congratulate him on having managed to ask three questions. We will introduce amendments on both the tariff proposals and the decarbonisation powers, but we will do so in Committee, not before Second Reading. The whole House will be able to see them at Report stage, however. We want and value parliamentary scrutiny. I have lost track of the hon. Gentleman’s other two questions—he was a little greedy—but I am sure we will get back to him on them.

Jason McCartney: Will the Secretary of State explain again how the UK will be able to meet its commitment to cut CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 if we are not ready to commit to decarbonising electricity by 2030?

Edward Davey: We are on track and we will hold to our commitments in the Climate Change Act. I refer my hon. Friend to my recent comments on the decarbonisation target being set at the same time as the fifth carbon
	budget. The fifth carbon budget covers the period from 2028 to 2033, and it therefore covers 2030, the year of the decarbonisation target in the power sector. The two approaches will therefore be brought together.

Ann McKechin: Can the Secretary of State confirm that people who are on prepayment meters or who cannot access online services will be able to enjoy the cheapest tariff their supplier offers?

Edward Davey: Under the Ofgem proposals, those on prepayment meters will be on the lowest tariff, given their payment method. We are consulting on the Ofgem proposals, and we are committed to them.

Damian Collins: The Secretary of State’s statement is positive news for the nuclear new build programme. When will he start considering the sites for stations that will open beyond 2025, and will the Government consider sites that are not currently on the approved site list?

Edward Davey: As my hon. Friend knows, there are eight sites in the national plan, which is quite a lot to be getting on with, but any developers of a new nuclear proposition are free to propose sites not currently listed. I know that my hon. Friend has vigorously campaigned for Dungeness to be added to the list. I think there is a letter in the post to him about that, and I will be very happy to talk to him in detail about it.

Tom Clarke: Despite the Secretary of State’s responses to two questions about customers, the fact of the matter is that when he referred to regulatory matters in his statement, he mentioned only industry and investors. Who will represent consumers worried about fuel poverty growing and instances of hypothermia increasing, especially as Ofgem seems to be both tepid and toothless?

Edward Davey: First, I worry about consumers; I made them one of my top priorities on day one in office. Ofgem has a duty to consumers, and it is working on their behalf. The Labour party wants to get rid of Ofgem, even though it is currently doing a very good job with its retail market review. The last Government were asked to simplify tariffs in order to help consumers; they failed to do so, but Ofgem has brought forward proposals on that.

Duncan Hames: The investment and competition that the energy sector needs will be dependent upon attracting independent generators. Will any of the Secretary of State’s proposals help to ensure that new independent generators can enter our electricity market?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and when he reads the Bill in detail, he will see that we are addressing this matter. We believe there must be greater liquidity in the wholesale markets, and the independent generators also want that. As my hon. Friend knows, last May we issued a call for evidence on independent generators’ concerns in respect of accessing purchase power agreements, which are crucial to them. We have set out our response and what we intend to do in the Bill and its associated documents published today.

Meg Hillier: On 17 October, the Prime Minister promised that he would ensure that energy companies put consumers on the lowest tariff by law. We know that that was a sleight of hand; the Secretary of State has just said that metered customers would not be on the lowest tariff, only the lowest in their band. Will the Secretary of State be clear today that he is only limiting the tariffs to four per company and that there is no guarantee that they will be the lowest? The lowest tariffs will now be higher than they were before.

Edward Davey: If the hon. Lady has read Ofgem’s proposals, she will have seen that it proposes four core tariffs. People can then express preferences in respect of both their payment method and whether they want dual discounts. Our consultation paper’s proposals are very similar to Ofgem’s.

Caroline Flint: They are identical.

Edward Davey: They are not identical; the right hon. Lady probably needs to read them in a little more detail. However, we believe that Ofgem’s are very good proposals. They were based on two years of study and will see that people, once they have expressed their preferences on how they wish to pay and so on, will be on the lowest tariff. The last Government failed to deliver on that.

Dan Byles: This week Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said three interesting things about the development of unconventional oil and gas. He called it
	“the biggest change in the energy world since World War II”,
	and went on:
	“This is bigger even than the development of nuclear energy…This has implications for the whole world.”
	Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Edward Davey: I do think that shale gas has implications for the whole world, although sometimes some commentators get rather expansive and over-enthusiastic. Shale gas is important. I want it developed in the United Kingdom, but we have to make sure that that is done safely and in a way that protects our environment. I believe that that can be done.

Nia Griffith: I very much welcome what the Secretary of State said about trying to put British companies at the forefront of the green energy revolution. However, last week Tata Steel announced 600 job losses in Wales and the future of the British steel industry is very dependent on UK demand. What can the Secretary of State do to encourage the development of renewables such as offshore wind turbines, which use thousands of tonnes of steel per turbine? What can he do to promote the use of UK steel in those endeavours?

Edward Davey: Our legislative, financial and levy control framework has been warmly welcomed by the offshore wind industry as the biggest boost it has ever seen. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Lady.
	The hon. Lady mentioned Tata Steel, which, obviously, is an energy-intensive user. Energy-intensive industries have often been concerned about energy prices and the impact of moving to low-carbon energy. In his autumn
	statement last year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor put forward proposals for supporting them and those have been taken forward. The hon. Lady will see in today’s announcement that we are helping energy-intensive industries with respect to contracts for difference in the electricity market reform regime. I think that will be widely welcomed.

Lorely Burt: I welcome today’s statement and the Energy Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will confirm that we are now on track with our aspiration to be the greenest Government ever.
	Specifically, what effect will his announcement have on projects such as Eggborough power station—a coal-fired station on the starting blocks and ready to convert to biomass and eventually carbon capture? It is waiting to go ahead.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we are on track to be the greenest Government ever. Yesterday, I was at the launch of the green investment bank, which is just one example, in Edinburgh.
	My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), is meeting Eggborough representatives today. I cannot comment ahead of that meeting, but I believe that Eggborough and other power plants will like our proposals.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Secretary of State mentioned the Doha negotiations. What are the Government’s specific objectives —I do not mean just getting agreement—for those negotiations? Which members of the ministerial team will represent the UK there?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. I will be attending the Doha negotiations, along with the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). On our objectives, we have been arguing for a balanced package. In the pre-COP discussions in Seoul, we argued that the European Union and other members of the Kyoto protocol need to commit to a second period and that we need the long-term co-operative action negotiations to come to an end, and in return we need a work plan to take us from now until 2015 so that we can implement the international, legally binding treaty promised at Durban. In addition, we want ambitious proposals to come from other countries on climate change finance and we would like to see more mitigation measures.
	Just before this statement, I was at Clarence house with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales attending a meeting on forests. We have made an announcement today of the use of UK climate change finance money to support new forest projects, which I believe will help the climate change talks and show that this Government have an ambitious agenda.

Andrew Stephenson: Some great companies in Pendle are working in the energy sector: Graham Engineering works in the nuclear supply chain; and Kirk Environmental is internationally renowned and is the only UK company specialising in the manufacture
	of large anaerobic digestive tanks and double membrane biogas holders. Will the Secretary of State commit to working closely with Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, who are delivering things such as the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative, to ensure that British companies, such as those based in my constituency, can deliver the low-carbon economy and the energy security he seeks to achieve?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the potential for growth and jobs resulting from our energy policies is huge. He will be pleased to learn that I have been working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on exactly these issues. We will be producing strategies on the supply chains in nuclear and offshore wind, and we have been working together to maximise the potential for British jobs from this investment and these energy infrastructure plans.

Lindsay Roy: What level of continuing subsidy does the Secretary of State envisage for wind turbine generation? Does he consider that to be a cost-effective investment?

Edward Davey: Our investments and our policies for offshore wind have been widely welcomed, and we are seeing the industry really get going. We have the largest amount of offshore wind capacity already installed and we have some of the greatest potential in the world. It is important that we get costs down. We are working with the offshore wind developers and the forum that has been established to get cost reductions, and they produced a report just a few months ago showing how we could get cost reductions across the piece, which will make a huge difference to competitiveness.

David Mowat: I welcome the Bill, which at last gives us the possibility of unleashing nuclear power at scale in the UK. The Secretary of State will have seen the recent EU figures showing that every EU industrial country except France has higher carbon emissions per head than the UK. Yet Germany, which has 20% more carbon emissions per head than
	the UK, has recently embarked on a project to build 20 unabated coal power stations. How does he reconcile Germany’s position with ours?

Edward Davey: I work closely with my German counterparts, particularly Peter Altmaier, and I know that they are having a big debate in Germany called the “Energiewende” looking at how they will deal with the implications of reducing their nuclear industry. I am sure that my hon. Friend would understand that, given our close partnership with Germany, I would not wish to tread on Herr Altmaier’s toes, but this country is investing in nuclear. We are putting forward a regime that we think is attractive, and Hitachi’s £700 million investment in the Horizon project shows that international companies and international capital believe we have got it right.

Lindsay Hoyle: Last but not least, I call Martin Horwood.

Martin Horwood: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in time, feed-in tariffs with contracts for difference will provide a means of supporting a diverse emerging and fast-changing renewables industry that is good for the environment and fairer to households than the outgoing renewables obligation system? Will he reconsider extending that subsidy to a mature and inflexible nuclear industry dominated by a single French nationalised company that is trying to seal the deal in secret before we have even passed the legislation?

Edward Davey: First, on my hon. Friend’s last point, I have made it clear that we will be very transparent about negotiations with EDF or any other company. Of course, he would not expect me to comment on negotiations daily but he would expect me to bring to the House the results of them so that I can be held to account in the proper way.
	On my hon. Friend’s first point, he is absolutely right. One of the huge advantages of feed-in tariffs with contracts for difference compared with the renewable obligations certificate system is that the deal is much better for consumers. The policies we are putting in place and electricity market reform will mean that consumer and business bills will be far lower than they otherwise would have been. That is one of the main reasons we are doing this.

Points of Order

Susan Elan Jones: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There has been some concern about today’s Westminster Hall Select Committee on Welsh Affairs debate on inward investment in Wales. It did not appear on the Order Paper at any point this week until today and notification only came in the business statement on 8 November. Furthermore, there is concern that that important debate will clash with the Prime Minister making a statement on the Leveson report. Will you look into what went wrong concerning the debate, which is obviously important for the people of Wales?

Lindsay Hoyle: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It was an administrative error, which has been corrected, and we will certainly try to ensure that it does not happen again. The two debates would have taken place whether it was on the Order Paper or not, but the point is absolutely correct. It was an error—it was a mistake—and we must ensure that it does not happen again.

Tom Harris: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In a written ministerial statement on 9 November, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs stated that he had asked Professor Ian Boyd, DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser,
	“to convene an expert taskforce on tree health and plant biosecurity.”
	The Secretary of State said that he looked
	“forward to seeing his interim proposals at the end of November”—[Official Report, 9 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 50WS.]
	He also said that he would update the House on receipt of them. Tomorrow is the last sitting day in November.
	It took Ministers five months from the point at which the presence of ash dieback in the country was identified to doing something about it and further delays cannot be tolerated. Have you received any indication from the Secretary of State that he intends to make a statement to the House today or tomorrow?

Lindsay Hoyle: I have had no such indication and although the point is now on the record, it is not a point for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman is aware.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Energy Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Secretary Davey, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Secretary Hague, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Secretary Hammond, Secretary Vince Cable, Mr Secretary Pickles, Mr Secretary Paterson, Mr Oliver Letwin, Gregory Barker and Mr John Hayes, presented a Bill to make provision for or in connection with reforming the electricity market for purposes of encouraging low carbon electricity generation or ensuring security of supply; for the establishment and functions of the Office for Nuclear Regulation; about the government pipe-line and storage system and rights exercisable in relation to it; about the designation of a strategy and policy statement; for the making of orders requiring regulated persons to provide redress to consumers of gas or electricity; about offshore transmission of electricity during a commissioning period; for imposing further fees in respect of nuclear decommissioning costs; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 100) with explanatory notes (Bill 100-EN).

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Scotland and the Union

[Relevant document:  Sixth Report from the Scottish Affairs Committee, Session 2010-12, The Referendum on Separation for Scotland: Unanswered Questions, HC  1806 .]

Lindsay Hoyle: I inform the House that I have selected amendment (a) in the name of Angus Robertson.

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that Scotland has always made, and continues to make, a significant contribution to the UK over the 305 years of the Union; notes the strong and enduring bonds that exist between Scotland and the other nations of the UK; further notes its shared history and the contribution that the Scottish people have made to public life in the UK in politics, academia, trade unions and the armed forces; notes the contribution that Scotland’s businesses make to the UK economy and their particular expertise in cutting edge industries such as life sciences and engineering; further notes that a referendum on separating Scotland from the rest of the UK will be held before the end of 2014; and believes that Scotland is better off as part of the UK and the rest of the UK is better off together with Scotland.
	It is customary to begin debates that are granted by the Backbench Business Committee by saying how pleased we are to have a debate on a particular subject. I say that genuinely, not merely as a convention. Tomorrow is St Andrew’s day and Scots around the world are celebrating their pride in their nation and their culture. It is important when we are considering the future of Scotland and our United Kingdom that the debate takes place in this United Kingdom Parliament. We appreciate that the debate will take place in many forums around the United Kingdom and around the world over the next two years and particularly, of course, in Scotland and in the Scottish Parliament, but in addition to those debates, we must have the opportunity to discuss these extremely important matters here in the United Kingdom Parliament.
	There are many more Scots outside Scotland than within Scotland. Most of us now accept that only the people who are currently living in Scotland, be they Scottish or merely resident in Scotland with a right to vote, will take part in the referendum. Indeed, several of my constituents in Epping Forest have written to me or come to see me to ask why they, as Scots, will not get a vote in the referendum about the future of their country. I have told them not to worry, because as long as they keep on voting Conservative in Epping Forest there will be a Scottish voice here in the United Kingdom Parliament.

James Gray: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, which is extremely important for the future of the United Kingdom. Does she not agree that there is also an argument in favour of allowing the people of England to have their say on the Scottish devolution question and on independence? If Scotland became an independent nation that would have a real effect on the people of Wiltshire as well as the people of Scotland.

Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely correct. I have a great deal of sympathy for his point, but I accept that agreement has been entered into that the terms of the referendum have been broadly decided, although they have yet to be finally decided in the Scottish Parliament. I accept that the Scottish Parliament will decide on the franchise for the referendum and that, in doing so, it is unlikely to decide that people throughout the entire United Kingdom should have a vote in the referendum, but although those people will not have a vote in the referendum, they must have a voice in the debate. That will be provided in this Parliament and throughout all parts of the United Kingdom.

Dan Byles: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Is she aware of whether there might be any restrictions on which people living in Scotland will be entitled to vote in the referendum, such as on English people, EU citizens or people from further afield?

Eleanor Laing: It is likely that the franchise will be the same as the franchise for the last Scottish parliamentary elections. I accept that and I do not think we should spend too much time arguing about the franchise as the line must be drawn somewhere. I trust the Scottish Parliament to draw the line in a reasonable way that is in accord with general electoral practice.

Rehman Chishti: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. She mentions the Scottish Parliament—does she agree with me that a strong Scottish Parliament in the United Kingdom gives us the best of both worlds?

Eleanor Laing: Yes, it does. I entirely accept that—[ Interruption. ] Before the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) reminds me that I have not always accepted that, let me say that I accept it now—[ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) says that is progress, and I am proud of the progress I have made in that respect.
	Yesterday, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland led the annual St Andrew’s day service in the crypt of the Palace of Westminster. He asked why the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland comes to London in this week every year and he answered that question by saying that at least 300,000 Scots live in London. London is probably the largest parish covered by the Church of Scotland anywhere. That emphasises the point: there are Scots in London, in England and all over the world who care about the future of their country—our country. The Moderator of the General Assembly comes to London because this is the capital city of the United Kingdom—the capital city of all our nations brought together.

Liam Fox: My hon. Friend makes an important key point about the United Kingdom and its identity. On the numerous visits that I made to Iraq and Afghanistan, our armed forces did not ask one another whether they came from Cardiff, Belfast, Edinburgh or London. They fought for a country and a people that they love, united not just by instruments of parliamentary procedure, but by a country, intermarried and interlinked through many generations. We are a
	people united not by parliamentary instrument or law, but by tradition and convention, and much more by our human activities.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. A lot of Members wish to speak. We need shorter interventions. I remind Members that those who intervene who were on the speaking list will be dropped down if they continue to intervene.

Eleanor Laing: My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) makes an extremely important point, which is at the very centre of this debate. He mentions Afghanistan and Iraq, where he has seen recently and personally the contribution made by brave servicemen and women from every part of this United Kingdom and our allies in other parts of the world—from every part of the United Kingdom, and they do not ask each other, “Which is your country?”
	It is our country for which we fight, not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but going back in our history, through the second world war, through the first world war, which in two years’ time, just at the time of the referendum, we will remember. That war started 100 years before the referendum is due to take place. Brave Scots joined brave Englishmen, Welshmen, Irishmen—

Angus MacNeil: And New Zealanders.

Eleanor Laing: Indeed, New Zealanders and Australians—to fight against the oppressor. The oppressor is not within this United Kingdom. The oppressor is potentially outwith the United Kingdom, and together we have fought oppression and won against oppression for centuries.

Michael Weir: I am listening to what the hon. Lady is saying and she seems to have fossilised history. Yes, of course we have fought together in the past. We have fought the Germans in the past, but we co-operate with them on other things now. History does not stand still, and Scottish independence is an evolution of history.

Eleanor Laing: No one is suggesting that history stands still. I am referring to history as history. What happened 100 years ago we will commemorate as having happened 100 years ago, but we will not forget it. Those who forget history suffer for having done so. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset is that right now, at this very minute, brave servicemen and women from Scotland, England and other parts of the United Kingdom are fighting together to guarantee the freedom of our country, our whole country. That is not history. That is current. It is right now.
	Last week or the week before last, as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will remember, we had a debate in Committee Room 14 organised by the Law Society of Scotland, a fine bunch of people. Before I took all those interventions, I was speaking about Scots outside Scotland. The Law Society of Scotland has an enormous number of members, of which I happen to be one, in London. Committee Room 14 was packed. We had a really good and lively debate but, despite his excellent speech, not one person
	in that Room voted to support the hon. Gentleman— not one, and I promise I had not invited them all personally.
	Continuing on the same theme, last night I attended another packed meeting held here in London, in Chelsea, by Friends of the Union. It was a great surprise to me to bump into the chairman of the Essex Conservatives, a very nice gentleman whom I see frequently in my constituency. I said something along the lines, “I didn’t know you cared, Adrian.” He explained to me in no uncertain terms that he and many of the other people who were there at that event for Friends of the Union had come of their own accord because they are fed up hearing that people in England and the rest of the United Kingdom do not care about Scotland. That is simply not true and it will be proved not to be true as this debate takes hold throughout the whole country. He said to me, and other people came and joined in the conversation, “We are here because we care about the United Kingdom and we care about Scotland as part of the United Kingdom.” They value the United Kingdom. They know that we are better together.
	As we consider the motion and the amendment, and as we seriously begin the debate in the country, let us at least try to get the language right. This debate is not about nationalism. Scotland is a nation. We are proud of our nation. I discovered earlier that it happens that tomorrow is the 140th anniversary of the first football international between Scotland and England.

Angus MacNeil: Who won?

Eleanor Laing: It was held in Glasgow and I am pleased to say it was a no-score draw. But the point about it is that one can have an international only if one has a nation. We all go to Murrayfield, Twickenham and the Millennium stadium and cheer on our national football, rugby and other teams, because each of the component parts of the United Kingdom is a nation. So let us stop arguing about whether Scotland is a nation. That is not a question. Scotland is a nation, as is England, Wales, Northern Ireland and so on.
	The debate is not about independence. That is another misnomer. Scotland is independent and is in charge of her own destiny. Scotland has and always has had her own institutions—the law, the education system, the Church. I speak as living proof as a graduate of Edinburgh university, a member of the Law Society of Scotland and a member of the Church of Scotland, but more important than that to me, I am a member of the Epping Forest Scottish Association. As the Member of Parliament for Epping Forest in the proud county of Essex, I have no conflict between my nationality as Scottish and British, and my constituents have no problem about having somebody represent their constituency who happens to have been born in another part of the United Kingdom. This is a time when people around the world are breaking down barriers and coming together. It is wrong to construct barriers that we do not need.

Michael Weir: The hon. Lady is making an impassioned speech but her point about people who were born in other parts of the United Kingdom is irrelevant. There are people representing all parties in the Scottish Parliament who were born in other parts of the United Kingdom and other places. The debate is about the right of the
	people living in Scotland to determine their future. It is not about whether people from other parts of the United Kingdom can or cannot be Scots if they are currently living in Scotland. There is no argument about that.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong. This is not about an argument or a debate about the right of people living in Scotland to determine their future. We all agree that people in Scotland have the right to determine their future. I have just said that and I have said it many times in the House and in other places. Everyone accepts that. Scotland is a nation. Scotland is independent. Scotland holds Scotland’s future in its own hands.
	This debate is not about nationalism or independence; it is about separation. That is the word that should be used in debates in this Parliament, in the Scottish Parliament and in every forum across the country and further afield in the debate that will rage between now and the referendum in two years’ time. This is about separation, not pride in our country or whether Scotland can survive on her own. Of course Scotland can survive on her own; she is a strong and capable country full of brilliant and talented people. This debate is about drawing artificial lines that we do not need. As the motion states—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I point out gently to the hon. Lady that she has now been speaking for 17 minutes. She must be getting close to the end of her speech, because I know that she is desperate to hear the other arguments.

Eleanor Laing: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am afraid that I have taken many interventions, this being a debate, but I will conclude shortly.
	I will leave it to others to talk about why separation would be bad for industry, financial institutions, the currency, the armed forces, family and culture. I will turn to the motion and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). I would be minded to accept the amendment were it not for the first few words, which propose leaving out the last three lines of the motion, which state that this House
	“notes that a referendum on separating Scotland from the rest of the UK will be held before the end of 2014; and believes that Scotland is better off as part of the UK and the rest of the UK is better off together with Scotland.”
	I believe that the vast majority of Members will support our motion today. The amendment would leave out those lines and add
	“recognises that special relationships also endure with Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa and other members of the Commonwealth as well as the Republic of Ireland and the United States; and believes that this will also be the case with Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom after the 2014 independence referendum.”
	I entirely agree, because after the referendum nothing will change. The people of Scotland are sensible, forward-looking people and they will vote to stay better together within the United Kingdom.
	Most states in the landmass of Europe and other parts of the world have to draw boundaries somewhere, but we do not have to do so because we have a natural
	boundary: our shores. This is but a small island, full of people in every part whose individual lives, past, present and future, are bound up with each other. Each part has its own identity, but this House will agree this afternoon that we are stronger and better to go forward together as one United Kingdom.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am introducing a 10-minute time limit on speeches.

Graeme Morrice: I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of the debate, alongside the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), whom I am delighted to follow. In a way, as a Scot who represents an English constituency, she epitomises what the motion is about: the rich blend of the best of all four corners of our land that has made the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the success story it so evidently is. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom is greater than the sum of its constituent parts. Although I might disagree with her politics, I have no doubt that we, as Scots, share a love of our country and want to see what is right and proper for its people and for future generations. It is also fitting that we are holding this debate on the eve of St Andrew’s day, the national occasion when we Scots come together to celebrate our patron saint and demonstrate our pride in all things Scottish.
	As the motion states, Scotland has made a significant contribution to the United Kingdom over the 305 years of the Union, and it continues to do so. Indeed, our shared history goes back even further to the union of the Crowns in 1603, when a Scot, James VI, sat on the English throne as James I. He was the first of six monarchs in the Stuart line who ruled both England and Scotland, as well as Ireland, until the Glorious Revolution, and then again to 1714. In fact, it was Queen Anne, the last of the Stuart line, who became the first monarch of the political union of Britain.
	With the Acts of Union in 1707, Scotland quickly took advantage of the abolition of trade tariffs with England and trade blossomed. The 18th century also saw the Scottish enlightenment, a period characterised by momentous intellectual and scientific accomplishments, so much so that Voltaire said:
	“We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation.”
	With the advent of the Union, Scots took up positions of power in politics, the civil service, the Army and Navy, trade, economics, colonial enterprises and other areas across the emerging British empire. The historian Neil Davidson has observed:
	“Far from being ‘peripheral’ to the British economy, Scotland...lay at its core.”
	Indeed, throughout the industrial revolution Scotland more than punched above its weight and became known across the world for its excellence in engineering, as typified by Clyde-built ships.
	Through advancements in medicine and its inventive spirit, distinct banking system and contribution to art, literature and culture, Scotland has always added greatly beyond its shores. Even in times of adversity, the people of Scotland have not been wanting. During the first world war, despite Scotland having a population of
	only 4.8 million, over half a million Scots went to the front. My purpose in touching, albeit briefly, on 300 years of Scottish history is to point out that many of our achievements and benefits were because of our place within the UK, not in spite of it.
	Scotland is linked intrinsically to the rest of the United Kingdom socially, politically and economically. The single market within the UK affords significant economic, trade and employment opportunities to people on both sides of the border. Our membership of the European Union, through the United Kingdom, provides a vast marketplace for Scottish exporters. Together we have a place at the top table of the European Council of Ministers and we are one of the G8 forum of the world’s largest economies and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, all of which allows us to wield unprecedented influence on the European and global stages. As a member of NATO, we have collectively benefited since the war from international security and defence co-operation on a grand scale.
	When it comes to the economy, Scotland has a very important relationship with the rest of the UK. Scotland benefits from access to a market comprising tens of millions of people within a single jurisdiction. Scots are employed by firms based in the rest of the UK, and people in the rest of the UK benefit from employment opportunities with Scottish-based companies. Indeed, in 2010 Scotland’s exports to the rest of the UK were worth double its exports to the rest of the world— £44 billion and £22 billion respectively—and manufacturing exports were estimated at £13 billion.

Tom Clarke: I welcome my hon. Friend’s point about manufacturing industry. Does he agree that the sizeable increase in manufacturing, which is taking place as we speak, has arisen mainly as a result of the Scottish contribution?

Graeme Morrice: I certainly concur with my right hon. Friend on that point.
	In addition to the shared opportunities, the pooling of resources across the UK allows risk as well as reward to be spread, as seen most notably in the bail-out of the Scottish-based banks during the financial crisis, when the UK, led by a Scot, injected £37 billion of capital into the banks—an amount in excess of the total budget of the Scottish Government.
	The legal framework for business is more or less uniform across the entirety of the UK. That means that there is a similar taxation, regulatory and employment law regime throughout the UK. On the benefit of a single market both to Scotland and to the rest of the UK, the director general of the CBI has stated that the
	“raft of common laws and regulations...make operating across the different constituent parts of the union more efficient.”
	The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has noted that the Scottish economy is
	“more integrated with the rest of the UK than Europe or the rest of the world.”
	With regard to jobs, people on both sides of the border benefit from employment opportunities engendered by Scotland being part of the Union. The UK Government are a major employer in Scotland, with more than
	30,000 civil servants bringing almost £700 million annually to Scotland in salaries alone. Thousands of jobs also rely on the defence sector in Scotland, with 40,000 people employed in more than 800 companies. Companies from the rest of the UK contribute about one fifth of private sector economic activity in Scotland.
	On energy, North sea oil is an important contributor to the UK economy, accounting for thousands of jobs in the north-east of Scotland, and a valuable source of revenue for the UK Treasury. However, the supply is declining and unstable. Recent reports show that North sea oil production fell by 30% in 2011 compared with the previous year. For the past 18 years, the level of public spending in Scotland has dwarfed the total revenue from North sea oil; in 2009-10, the difference was £18 billion. In fact, welfare spending in Scotland in 2010 was three times higher than North sea oil revenue. Of course, oil and gas remain an important part of the Scottish and UK economies and will do so in the years to come, but to bet Scotland’s economic future on this sector, as the Scottish National party does, is naive at best and foolhardy at worst. Moreover, Scotland being outwith the UK would create uncertainty for the future of Scotland’s renewables industry, and potentially lead to higher fuel bills and a £2 billion burden on Scottish businesses, due to Scotland receiving a disproportionate share of the available subsidy compared with the rest of the UK. These figures highlight the many benefits of Scotland being part of the UK economy in that we are able to work together in partnership to share the risks and rewards involved in harnessing our energy resources.
	Scotland being part of the UK also allows us to pool our resources and distribute them on the basis of social need across the welfare state. If it were outwith the UK, that would place a major question mark over its ability to continue to fund benefits at current levels and to meet state and public sector pension commitments. It is simply an illusion for the SNP to promise Scandinavian levels of welfare spending while supporting Irish levels of taxation.
	There are many other positives on which I could elaborate, such as the flexibility across borders which has over the years benefited people on both sides and led to high levels of migration in both directions; indeed, I personally have been a beneficiary of that. Our common currency is one of the oldest monetary unions in the world. A practical and more recent example is the benefit derived by Scottish athletes from UK sports funding, facilities and coaching in the run-up to the Olympics and Paralympics. It is interesting to note that all but three of the Scots who won medals at the Olympics had team-mates from the rest of the UK.

Lindsay Roy: Is my hon. Friend aware that three Scots Olympians have been nominated for the BBC sports personality of the year award?

Graeme Morrice: Indeed I am. All three—Sir Chris Hoy, Andy Murray and Katherine Grainger—train and reside in England and clearly benefit from Scotland being part of the United Kingdom. Of course, we pay tribute to those athletes as part of Team GB and wish them every success in the BBC sports personality of the year award. [ Interruption. ] Indeed, they cannot all win, but we would like to see them do so.
	There is much more I could say about the benefits to Scotland and the rest of the UK of Scotland remaining a strong partner within the Union. I am sure that other Members will fill any gaps in my speech and expand on some of the points I have made. I conclude by mentioning one of Scotland’s and the UK’s most notable achievements in its 300-year history—devolution. Devolution has been a great success and has provided new vigour to the United Kingdom. Whether in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, devolution is working but also developing, as it will continue to do in future. As we are all well aware, support for devolution and attachment to the UK in Scotland is stronger than support for independence. Scots share the same social attitudes and values as people in the rest of the UK. They are just as alert to the risks and uncertainties of separation and have a real comprehension of the benefits and advantages of remaining part of the UK. Therefore, all things considered, there is no doubt that we are all better off together.

Iain Stewart: It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to this timely and important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on securing it. I am proud to be a co-signatory to the motion.
	The hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) set out very well many of the practical benefits that Scotland and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom gain from the Union, be it in defence, finance and economic matters, or our influence on the world stage. We could, and should, have a full debate on each of those points, and I am sure that in the course of the next year or two, leading up to the referendum, they will all be fully explored. To summarise the benefits—I think that the hon. Gentleman used this phrase—the strength of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. We are stronger together.
	Scotland could go it alone as a separate country. I am not one of those who believes that it would be an impoverished basket case of a country that could not survive on its own. Of course it could, but at what cost? Together, we are stronger, more influential, safer and more prosperous. It would be much riskier for everyone if Scotland went it alone.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman have a list of nations of about 4 million to 5 million people that might be better off joining the UK because they would be safer, more prosperous and more influential? Is he considering Denmark, Sweden or Finland? What is at the forefront of his mind?

Iain Stewart: I am puzzled. Is the hon. Gentleman asking for other countries to come and join us in the United Kingdom? That is a very interesting notion.
	A few years ago, the global banking crisis sent economic shockwaves around the world. The SNP used to make a claim for the arc of prosperity that would link a separate Scotland with Ireland and Iceland, but that arc has rusted somewhat in the light of events. A separate Scotland could potentially have weathered that storm,
	but the resilience that we had as a country was much stronger because we were the United Kingdom and not split up into atomised parts.

Angus MacNeil: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to cast aspersions on Iceland and will therefore know its unemployment rate and GDP per capita as against the United Kingdom.

Iain Stewart: I cannot give those figures off the top of my head. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Iceland was any better placed to weather the storm than the United Kingdom, that is a slightly revisionist view of history.
	Another issue is Scotland’s role in the European Union if it becomes a separate country. There was an interesting debate on that in Westminster Hall last week. In the interests of brevity, I will not rehearse all the arguments. I believe strongly that if Scotland went its own way and wanted to be part of the EU, it would happen on the EU’s terms. Scotland would be sucked into full currency, fiscal and political union, which would not be to its benefit.

Michael Weir: rose —

Iain Stewart: I will not give way again.
	The EU issue makes a mockery of the SNP’s independence policy. It is perfectly logical to argue that if Scotland does not like one economic union and wants to be the master of its own destiny, it should go its own way, but to argue that it should then join an ever-deepening union is utterly illogical.
	The fact that we are having a referendum at all is risky as it may be a distraction from what we should be concentrating on. I do not doubt for a minute that it is perfectly within Scotland’s right to have the debate and to have the matter resolved. As a democrat, I fully accept that the Scottish National party won a majority in the last Scottish Parliament elections and that a referendum was part of its manifesto. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to have the debate. But at what cost? The constitutional uncertainty in Canada in the 1980s and 1990s had a severe impact on the economic prosperity of Quebec. The EU admitted that in a report.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Iain Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have a number of points that I want to make and I have already been generous in giving way to him.
	A report by economists at the appropriately named Scotiabank in Canada said of the 1995 referendum:
	“The palpable fear in the markets was keyed off deep intertwined concerns about the country’s fiscal, economic and political circumstances.”
	The very fact that we are having this debate is therefore risky as it may distract us. However, I accept that it is legitimate that we are having it.
	My main point relates not to the economic or defence arguments or to Scotland’s influence on the global stage, but is a personal and emotional appeal. My nationality is British. I do not want to be rendered stateless or to be forced to choose between the place of
	my birth and the place I now call home. The country that would be left would be the rest of the United Kingdom and its flag would be, as the noble Lord Forsyth described it, “an anaemic red asterisk” once the blue of the saltire was taken out.
	As far as I can tell, my blood is 100% Scottish. My father has traced the generations of the family back to the 1700s. Unless there is something we do not know about, my family came from a small area in Lanarkshire and Ayrshire. I spent my childhood in Scotland. My primary and secondary education was in Scotland, but my higher education was in England. Three quarters of my working life has been spent in England. Through marriage and my family, I have many relatives who are part Scottish and part English. I have stood for public office five times: twice in Scotland and three times in England. My Scottish ventures were somewhat less successful than my English ones. I stood for South Lanarkshire council and for Glasgow Rutherglen. Let us just say that I saved my deposit on both occasions.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest said forcefully, of course Scotland and England have distinct cultures that are expressed through the arts and on the sporting field, but both can be vibrant within the Union. Patriotism does not require nationalism to flourish. Beyond a patriotic pride, the United Kingdom has something that is much stronger. Team GB at the Olympic games exemplified it, the monarchy exemplifies it, and even James Bond exemplifies it. We have an identity that has been forged through more than 300 years of the world’s most successful and enduring Union. We do not need to change. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) said that that is history. It is history, but it is also the present and I believe that it is the future. For goodness’ sake, let us not throw away what we have achieved and what makes us strong, prosperous and successful in an ever-changing world that is becoming more dangerous and uncertain. We have something that is strong and that works; let us keep it.

Pete Wishart: I beg to move an amendment, leave out from ‘engineering’ to end and add
	‘and recognises that special relationships also endure with Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa and other members of the Commonwealth as well as the Republic of Ireland and the United States; and believes that this will also be the case with Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom after the 2014 independence referendum.’.
	I reassure the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) that he can call himself Scottish, British or even Milton Keynesian—it is really up to him. This debate is all about identity and what we want to call ourselves.
	I thank the many hon. Members who have passed on their regards and concerns for my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). I reassure the House that he is back home and making a full recovery. I fully expect him to be back in his place very soon, talking about the Laffer curve and endogenous growth theory as only he can.
	Another person who is missing is the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). We were all expecting his presence today and to hear his
	words of wisdom on Scotland and the Union, but he is not here. He is a bit like Brigadoon: one gets a glimpse of him only once a year.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on the motion. It is a good motion. I take exception only with the last two lines of it, as she knows. There is so much more that she could have added, such as the contribution that Scots have made to the Union and the United Kingdom. She missed out the enlightenment, for goodness’ sake, which is an important way in which the Scots contributed to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom and the Union have also given much to Scotland. The Scots have helped to build and have shared the great institutions of the UK and the Union. We have fantastic cultural relationships and we have had great times. All of that is part of a social union and that will go nowhere. We will continue to be British after the independence referendum and when we secure our independence.

David Mundell: I am surprised to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because he previously told this House that
	“as Scotland moves forward to become a normal independent nation, all vestiges of Britishness will go.”
	He went on to say:
	“I have never felt British in my life. I do not even know what Britishness is.”—[Official Report, 12 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 306-307WH.]

Pete Wishart: I expected that response. In fact, it said on Twitter that that intervention would be made.
	I say to the Minister that, as we examine our relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom, we discover some of these fantastic ties. I accept that there will be vestiges of Britishness. That is a personal interest of mine. We are British. I live in Perth in the north of the island called Great Britain. It is called that because it is the largest of the British isles. I am British as much as somebody from Stockholm or Copenhagen is Scandinavian. That is the reality of geography and it cannot be denied. Hon. Members may want to take forward their obsession with separation by building a channel between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the only way that they could stop us being British.
	I accept that being British is about more than just geography. Of course there is something cultural about Britishness. However, Britishness is an invention. It was a necessary social construct to unite all the nations of the United Kingdom. That is why it is so hard to define and describe. We have heard some great and excruciating attempts to define Britishness. Who could forget the attempt of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, when he talked about
	“British jobs for British workers”?
	I remember the attempt by Michael Portillo, when he described Britishness as anti-fanaticism. However, Britishness is more than that. It is the combination of the 300 years that we have shared and endured across these islands. It is about everything from the industrial revolution to how we stood together in the wars; the Queen has been mentioned, and, of course, there are great pop and rock bands.
	I was particularly disappointed with the views of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) who tried to scaremonger on the issue of culture. He said that British music would be no longer “our” music but “their” music—whoever “they” are. I played in a band for 15 years. I replaced an English keyboard player and the lead singer of my band is Canadian. To suggest that something as free-spirited as music can be confined to borders or frontiers is absurd and ridiculous. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West should be ashamed of trying to scaremonger about culture.
	One good definition of Britishness—as has been mentioned fleetingly—was the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games, which got close to describing and defining Britishness. Danny Boyle did a fantastic job with his cultural tour de force. The big irony, however, is that part of that fantastic presentation placed a strong emphasis on the country’s social ethos, and particularly on the NHS, which the Westminster Tories are currently disestablishing through privatisation. Already, part of that glimpse of Britishness disappears with that very statement.

Eleanor Laing: rose —

Pete Wishart: I will not give way to the hon. Lady, because I do not have much time.
	That Britishness has no place in discussions on independence simply because it cannot be un-invented. We cannot un-invent all our ties, heritage and culture; we will always have a shared history and joint heritage, and there will always be cultural relationships and collaboration.
	Independence will bring a new, improved relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, because we will come to it from a position of equality and mutual respect. Most people in Scotland now describe themselves as Scottish—some, of course, describe themselves as and feel profoundly British, but most surveys of social attitude suggest that most Scots now present themselves as Scottish.
	As we have gone forward with our own national Parliament and strengthened our institutions, Scottish people are feeling more secure in their identity and more culturally relaxed about who they are. That is why we are able to adopt different identities and why we can easily accept the idea of being Scottish—we could be Pakistani Scottish, Indian Scottish, Polish Scottish, but we are all Scottish and that is how people now describe themselves. With independence, we could express our unique Scottishness in world institutions. We could bring Scottish values to international affairs and institutions, and that would only be good for people in Scotland.

Angus MacNeil: Does my hon. Friend agree that sharing a Prime Minister is not what makes hon. Members in the Chamber today British?

Pete Wishart: My hon. Friend is right. Britishness is about identity and geography. Our gripe is not with cultural Britishness or the social union—

Eleanor Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: I do not have time. As the hon. Lady will know, I have used my two minutes’ injury time.
	Our gripe is with political arrangements within the United Kingdom. We want to recalibrate political relationships within the UK; we want powers to grow our economy and make our own international contribution. We want to complete the powers of our Parliament and take responsibility for our affairs. We have no issue with our British past, heritage and culture, and they will be defining features of how we go forward as Scottish people.
	I find talk of separation and the idea that people will become “foreigners” dispiriting and depressing. Some of the language used has become quite chilling and I am getting a bit concerned. When people are described as foreigners I feel a little uncomfortable. I know that people have to build up the idea of Scotland as an unviable nation, and suggest that it is a risk and that there is scary stuff out there if it becomes independent, but can we please be careful with some of the language used when people build up that theme of separation? Negativity is a big and necessary part of the case and construct used by those who oppose independence.
	We have heard about the past and the things that unite us, and about our great relationships and institutions and the contribution that Scotland has made to the United Kingdom, but what about the future. What does Scotland get if it says no in a referendum on independence? Can we have a guarantee that if it remains in the Union, Scotland will be part of the EU in 10 years’ time? We have heard lots of talk about rolling back the achievements of the devolution era, but can we be certain that the gains of devolution will be secure if Scotland says no? Will the Scottish Parliament get more powers and—most importantly—if Scotland says no to independence, will the Scottish people be more prosperous? People have had 300 years to think about these issues, but nobody will give us answers. Those against independence have to come up with a case for Scotland to remain in the Union, but we have not heard it yet. Some of today’s contributions have been a little more positive, but we must hear a lot more about what people want to achieve.
	Those of us in favour of Scottish independence will, of course, be positive and put the case for it. I love my country and I want it to be all that it can. I want it to walk tall and for Scotland to have the national self-respect and dignity to make its own place in the world, take its own decisions, and ensure that the Scottish people are responsible for their own failures. We are a dynamic, inventive and resourceful people. Of course we will make a success of independence, and I am glad we no longer hear comments of “Too wee, too poor, too stupid.” Of course Scotland will be a success when it gets its independence; of course we will be great.
	I am depressed about the fact that Scotland is tethered to a failing UK state which is almost relaxed about its own failure. Scotland deserves better. I do not want the welfare reforms or years and years of austerity. I do not want illegal wars or nuclear weapons just outside. I want my country to make its own decisions about its future. An independent Scotland will be better because those who care most about it will make the decisions, not the Westminster Tories. The Scottish people will run Scotland and be responsible for their own decisions. It will be better because we care more about our nation than the Westminster Tories. That is why we run our devolved institutions better—we care about them and ensure we look after them.
	After Scotland becomes independent, we will continue to have fantastic cultural relationships and ties with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is important to us and has shaped who we are as the Scottish people. We have heard about the 305 years in which we have served together, the wonderful institutions we have built up, and our great ties and associations. Those things will go absolutely nowhere. The social union is important to us as independent Scottish people and we will enjoy and build on it. It will be better because we will come together in a sense of equality and mutual respect. We will build new British arrangements and relationships and they will be better because Scotland will be an independent nation. The political union has failed Scotland. We no longer want to be tethered to a failing UK state. We can be better. We can walk tall in the world and make decisions on our own. Scotland as an independent nation will be welcomed as a full, peace-loving nation in the world community. I look forward to that day. The social union lives on; the political union is dying and it will be finished off in 2014.

Anas Sarwar: I am almost tempted to wish that there was no time limit, because the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was making his case more strongly than anyone on either side of the House could have done. He clearly forgot his “Yes Scotland” positivity pills this morning, as it took nine minutes before we heard any positive case for Scotland’s becoming an independent country.
	We need to change the language of this debate, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) who have pushed this debate and provided us with an opportunity to do so today. We need a positive, engaging debate about what is in the best interests of Scotland and the UK’s future, not the language of whether Scotland is too small or too wee to be a successful country—incidentally, only SNP Members say that; no Labour Members have ever used such language. The question that I would throw back to the nationalists is this. I believe that the people of Scotland are creative, talented and innovative enough to be successful in the United Kingdom—why don’t they?
	The referendum is not about whether Scotland can or cannot manage on its own. Of course Scotland could be a successful, independent country, and it insults the intelligence of the Scottish people to suggest that it could not. The choice is not about whether Scotland can be successful but about whether it would be a fairer and more prosperous country with more opportunities if it works in partnership with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Labour Members believe that it will be, and we will be making that positive case in the referendum.
	I am not modest about Scotland’s ambitions. I genuinely believe that Scotland stands taller and shouts louder when it works in partnership with other areas of the UK, representing ourselves on the global stage. Yes, the Union has a proud history—300 years of shared history, security and prosperity. It has enjoyed success, as hon. Members have heard many times before. A Scot created the Bank of England, a Welshman our NHS and an Englishman our welfare state—but this is not about history; it is about Scotland’s future.
	Scotland deserves an open, engaging debate, not only on its constitutional settlement, but, more importantly, on what kind of Scotland we want to live in and want our children to live in. What will Scotland look like in 20 years’ time? Will it be able to compete with other parts of the UK and in the world?

Eilidh Whiteford: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that inequality in Scotland increased over the term of the previous Labour Government. Does he believe Scotland will fulfil its potential as an equal and fair society as part of the Union?

Anas Sarwar: It is untrue to say that health inequalities widened under the Labour Government, but it is factually correct to say that inequalities are increasing in Scotland under the watch of Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Government. Health inequalities are increasing and educational opportunities are decreasing. People from working class backgrounds in Scotland are less likely to go to college or university than people from working class backgrounds in England and Wales. That is happening on the watch of the Scottish National party, not of the Tories or Labour, so will the hon. Lady please not lecture Labour Members on our record? She should focus more on her party’s record in government.
	What Scotland do we want to create for future generations? We want it to be a successful country in which to bring up our children, but what role do we want Scotland to play in the world? I want Scotland not to isolate itself, but to engage with its partners in the UK to take on the big challenges of global poverty, to fight climate change, and to fight for justice and fairness in the world. What differentiates Labour Members and SNP Members? Labour Members did not come into politics because we wanted to fight poverty only in our constituencies or our country. We want to fight poverty and create opportunity not only in Glasgow and Edinburgh, but in Manchester, Birmingham and around the world. I do not believe we will do that by creating a border between Scotland and England. There is a vote on a UN resolution today on enhanced status for the Palestinian people, which will hopefully work towards a positive resolution by which we have an independent Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. I came into politics to fight for an independent Palestinian state and for self-determination for the people of Kashmir, not to break up my own country. I want to fight injustice in other parts of the world.
	One big point is that we can make the positive case for Scotland economically, emotionally, socially and politically. The most successful aid agency in the world is headquartered in Scotland. It employs hundreds of people, has a budget of £7 billion, helps to save hundreds of thousands of lives every year, and lifts hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty every year, which demonstrates the collective strength of Scotland working in partnership. We are a key member of the UN Security Council not for power or prestige, but to fight tyranny and oppression around the world. I want Scotland to have its full voice in that process. We are a leading economy and country in the G8. A Scottish leader as Prime Minister worked with the G8 to stop a global recession from becoming a global depression. Those are positive arguments for Scotland remaining part of the UK, not the negative arguments we get from the SNP.
	On the quality of the debate, we will have heated debates and the usual Scottish politics spats between Labour and the SNP and others between now and the referendum—[ Interruption. ] If the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire wants to make an intervention, I am more than happy to take it. We are divided politically, but we do not want our country to be divided in the process. Whatever happens in the referendum and whatever decision Scotland makes, we must ensure that we come together in the best interests of Scotland and ensure that we fight and create a fairer, more equal country.

Ian Murray: I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the start of the debate; I was in a Bill Committee.
	My hon. Friend mentions the quality of the debate. Will that not be enhanced if the First Minister is straight with the Scottish people and if his arguments stay on the same track? The arc of prosperity used to mean Ireland and Iceland, but now it has moved on to the Scandinavian countries. Until we have a consistent and honest debate, we will not have a fair playing field.

Anas Sarwar: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. When the Minister systematically destroyed the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire on Britishness, he reminded me that, throughout the SNP’s existence, it has claimed it wants independence because England has never treated Scotland fairly, and because Scotland has never had a fair deal within the UK, but SNP Members imagine that everyone will treat Scotland fairly and work together to create a better country when it separates from the UK. That just does not stack up.
	SNP Members make assertions on NATO and EU membership. The hon. Gentleman said today that the biggest threat to Scotland remaining part of the EU was from the UK, but he cannot guarantee that Scotland will remain a member of the EU if it chooses independence. We need facts rather than assertion. SNP Members say that Scotland will keep the pound and automatically have a seat on the Monetary Policy Committee; that the BBC will break up and Scotland will have better quality programmes; and that our credit rating and Royal Mail services will remain the same. They are assertions—not one of them is based on fact. The people of Scotland deserve better. Throughout the SNP’s existence, the answer to any question has always been “independence”, but now that the question is independence, it does not have the answers for the people of Scotland.
	Scotland deserves a transparent and open debate. It deserves to know what Scotland will look like if it chooses independence. It deserves better than a First Minister and a Scottish Government simply asserting that independence will be whatever people want it to be. That is not good enough. The SNP cannot say to one audience that Scotland will have the Monaco taxes, but then say to another audience that we will have Scandinavian public services. It cannot say that Scotland will have none of the horrible welfare changes and reforms, but that it will have similar corporation taxes to Ireland. That does not add up and is not credible, and disrespects the people of Scotland.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman is making his points as he always does, but does he not accept that it is up to the people of Scotland whom they vote into power after independence, and that it is up to them to decide how the shape of the new Scotland develops? Surely he accepts that the people will decide that in the first election after we win independence in 2014.

Anas Sarwar: The people of Scotland have an opportunity, through strengthened devolution, to have more of a say in decisions on their lives made in the Scottish Parliament and in local government, which has taken a hammering under the current Scottish Government. They can recognise that although there is nowhere better than Scotland, there is somewhere bigger, and that is working in partnership with the UK and global agencies to take on the challenges.

Anne McGuire: Would my hon. Friend have more confidence in his statement if the SNP declared here and now that it will dissolve itself the day after a referendum if there is a yes vote?

Anas Sarwar: SNP Members are probably more concerned about what happens the day after Scotland votes resoundingly no and rejects their vision of independence. The SNP is two different factions glued together on one track. When they divide, it will be interesting to see how they cope.
	We are having a heated debate today and we will have a heated debate in the next two years.

Pete Wishart: Only when the hon. Gentleman tries to shout me down.

Anas Sarwar: I feel very sorry for the hon. Gentleman, because he heard in the Europe debate last week the pre-published speech that the Scottish National party feared. I promise him that the people of Scotland and the Labour party do not fear the SNP or Alex Salmond. We do not fear an open and honest debate on the future of Scotland, or fear challenges to our record. We do not fear debating the future of our country. The SNP should come forward with that open and transparent debate. Let us, for Scotland, keep ourselves in the Union.

Nigel Dodds: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and the co-sponsors on securing it. I will be pleased to go through the Lobby in support of the motion with parties from all parts of the House. We need to send a strong message that, in all parts of the United Kingdom, we believe that we are better together, and that this is not just a question of us believing that Scotland is better in the United Kingdom, but that people in other parts of the United Kingdom want Scotland to be part of the United Kingdom. I take part in the debate in that spirit, conscious that ultimately it is for the people of Scotland to decide how they vote in the referendum.
	Hon. Members will know that the ties between people in Northern Ireland and in Scotland are very close. There is strong and growing interest in and support for Ulster Scots culture and heritage in the Province. Many
	people in Northern Ireland can trace their lineage and family history to Scottish antecedents—indeed, I would say that my name is more common in Scotland than it is in Northern Ireland. When I see those coaches coming over on the ferry with the Dodds name on it, I often say to my party colleagues that I wish we could hire some of them at election time and have them traverse north Belfast, but I have not been able to persuade them to do so.
	Of course, I stand here as a member of a party that has “Unionist” as part of its title. Our party was formed at a critical time in the history of Northern Ireland, when the Union was clearly under threat. The years that followed were difficult: tragically, there was much violence and bloodshed; many people were injured, lives were lost and many still live with physical and mental scars. Thankfully, that period of violence is largely behind us, and although there are still some who would try to drag us backwards, they are small in number and it is clear that those who tried to destroy the Union by terrorism did not succeed.
	Northern Ireland, and the United Kingdom as a whole, is a much better and different place today. Gone is the uncertainty about our future and our place in the UK. Indeed, right hon. and hon. Members will know, or be interested to learn if they are not aware of it, that support for the Union is at an all-time high, and is actually growing. A recent survey showed that a majority of people who traditionally would have described themselves as nationalist would, if there was a vote today, vote to remain part of the United Kingdom. There are many reasons why there is growing support for the Union, not least the fact that the violence has diminished and that under the current devolution settlement people feel that everybody has a say. To a large extent, people are in control of many areas of policy. They see parties and politicians who, while they have their differences—strong differences, which are sometimes illustrated in debates in this House—are working together for the betterment of all the people of Northern Ireland on the economic and social issues of the day. It is therefore important that we continue to strengthen, maintain and improve devolution where we can in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is dynamic and evolving, and we need to move it forward in that way.

Gregg McClymont: I wonder what role the economic storm that hit Ireland at the end of the last decade and the recognition of the benefits of being part of a larger union have played in increasing support for the Union.

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and I was just going to come on to that. While there is the case for devolution and people having a role in deciding issues in Northern Ireland, there is no doubt that the people who would at one time have looked to the Celtic tiger and envied what was happening in the south, have had a rude awakening about economic realities and the situation in the United Kingdom and other countries in the EU. It is clear that the massive economic boom in the Republic was built on a number of factors, not least a property boom that crashed dramatically. I have heard it said many times by people who traditionally look to the Irish Republic as their future, “Where would we be today if we’d been part of the eurozone? Where would we be today if we had been
	part of a country like the Irish Republic, instead of having our fortunes tied in with a bigger country like the United Kingdom?” That has been an important factor.
	Who would have believed 20 years ago that we would be talking about the danger to the Union coming from Scotland, rather than from Northern Ireland? I heard the leader of Sinn Fein say that he was going to campaign for a referendum in Northern Ireland. There is absolutely no support for that. Of course, we do not fear a referendum in Northern Ireland. We know that people would vote overwhelmingly to retain Northern Ireland’s membership of the United Kingdom. We are not opposed to it for any reason of concern about the outcome; however, under the provisions of the legislation, once Northern Ireland has a referendum, it has to happen every seven years, and we believe that that would be extremely destabilising and unnecessary. When I hear Gerry Adams talk about the need for a referendum, it is a long way from his cry that there would be united Ireland by 2016.
	Thankfully, the debate on the future of Scotland in the Union has never been tainted or stained in any way by violence and terrorism. The debate is being conducted in a peaceful and democratic way, and it will be decided through the ballot box. As I said, we respect the right of the Scottish people to decide their future. Of course, it is right and appropriate that people from other parts of the United Kingdom should have their say as well. We believe that we are better off together. That is an excellent campaign description—it is positive and people are responding to it. It is not being stated in an arrogant or aggressive way. Instead, people are saying, “We want you in Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.”

Angus MacNeil: The right hon. Gentleman mentions Better Together, and I think I heard that the Irish Republic’s Agriculture Minister was at his recent party conference. Does he extend the Better Together ethos to the Republic’s Agriculture Minister, and would he like to be in one state with him?

Nigel Dodds: I think the hon. Gentleman knows me and my party well enough by now to know the answer to the question of whether we think we would be better off in the Irish Republic. We had a very successful party conference this year. The shadow Secretary of State spoke at our conference dinner, and the Secretary of State spoke to conference on the Saturday. I was delighted to hear her declare in unequivocal terms that she would never be neutral on the Union. Of course, we also had the representative from the Irish Republic. We welcome visitors from other states, and we have visitors from outside the United Kingdom—of course we do. The reason why the Agriculture Minister was there, appropriately, is that the Irish Republic is to take over the presidency of the EU, and the reform of the common agricultural policy is extremely important for Northern Ireland farmers. It is important to hear from that Minister and to lobby him directly, particularly at this time, on those important issues. The response to that in Northern Ireland was positive.
	We will continue to build good relations with our friends in the Irish Republic, but we make it very clear to them that we do not wish to join it. We can have good neighbourly relations and, increasingly I think, those in the Irish Republic recognise that they have enough
	problems of their own without taking on any more in Northern Ireland. They are content to stick with the status quo, and they have declared clearly that until people in Northern Ireland vote otherwise, they will respect totally the principle of consent.
	Time is going on and others have articulated the reasons why Scotland would be worse off if it left the Union. I agree with what has been said. Not only would Scotland be worse off, but the United Kingdom as a whole would suffer from Scotland’s absence. A fragmented United Kingdom would not be as strong as we are together. Without Scotland, we would be a smaller nation in every sense, not just in population, economy and geography, and that is something that we do not wish to see.

Angus MacNeil: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Dodds: No, I will not give way anymore. I have given way twice already and time is limited. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech.
	This is a question not just of economics, but of our standing in the world. Our nation would be diminished if Scotland left, and with that would come a loss of influence and power. There are deep and lasting social and historical bonds that bind us all together in the constituent nations of the United Kingdom. The military links and the history of the regiments of the British Army have already been explored. It is the British Army—it is not made up of the nations of the United Kingdom. The UK did not evolve spontaneously; it came about as a result of our shared experiences and history, and of our bonds of language, culture and so on. Furthermore, of course, the union of the monarchy has been around for longer even than the political Union.
	Those are the bonds that have brought and tied us together as four countries, and they have grown, deepened and developed over time, with enormous consequences for ourselves and the rest of the world. Each of our countries—Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England —and their people have all played their part in the development and prosperity of the UK, and those bonds continue. The contribution of the Scottish people and Scottish business remains vital, and the Union remains of benefit to both Scotland and the UK as a whole.
	I hope that the debate on the referendum will be conducted in a constructive spirit. I am glad that there will not be the negativity—the descent into violence and so on—seen so often in Northern Ireland. I believe strongly, however, that it is important that other members of the United Kingdom and people from all parts of the United Kingdom—whether London and the south-east, Northern Ireland, Wales, or the north of England—say, with respect, while acknowledging that it is a decision for the Scottish people, “We want you to be part of the UK. We value your membership, and we feel we would be poorer without you in the United Kingdom.”

Tom Clarke: On one point, I think all sides of the House can agree: that in the debate so far, we have made it clear
	that it is right that the people of Scotland determine their own destiny. Later, if I have time, I will refer to the position on 16 to 18-year-olds, but first I will make a few personal comments.
	My own political motivation has been the need for action where and for whom it is most needed, whether in my constituency or in one of the poorest countries in the world. Representing my constituency is my No. 1 priority, as it is for other right hon. and hon. Members, but throughout my time in the House I have worked alongside organisations committed to helping people with disabilities and assisting people from the most impoverished countries in the world—nothing inward-looking, nothing introspective. I managed to get two Acts of Parliament on the statute book covering both the subjects I have mentioned, and I believe that both Acts were to the advantage of the whole of the UK.
	Those twin factors are at the heart of my activity, and will continue to be so. In other words, lines on maps do not excite me at all. I do not judge people or their plight by where they live. Many people have no choice in where or how they are born and are not tempted by the ideological Disneyland of the Scottish National party. I abhor the jingoistic mentality that peddles the myth of a Scottish solution for this, or an English solution for that. Time and again in the House, we have seen that the best solutions are those that are in the interest of the whole of the UK.
	I do not accept the politics of parochial arrogance, but I worry that Scotland is moving towards that, with the police becoming one authority, likewise the fire services, and the statement from a member of the Scottish Government this week about reducing the already rather small number of Scottish local authorities. I much prefer to take a more international perspective on these matters, and I am much more inclined to the view expressed by former President Bill Clinton:
	“The world has become completely interdependent, but we can’t make up our minds what that interdependence is going to look like. Interdependence simply means you can’t get a divorce”.
	Time does not allow me to develop the theme, but I think it is fundamentally true.
	In 2010, the British people spoke and, like it or not, we have in place a coalition Government. Upon their election, the coalition Government narrative was that the economic mess was all Labour’s fault. It has to be said that that line was successful for a short period, but with the passage of time and increased borrowing, to an extent we have hardly ever known, no one now believes it to be true. Economies throughout Europe are on their knees, and our constituents can see on their television screens public demonstrations in countries where Governments are implementing severe austerity measures. The question is not how many countries are struggling financially; it might be easier to name countries that are not.
	Why then am I against Scotland seeking a divorce from the United Kingdom? I am against it mainly for economic reasons, but there are other reasons that, if time allows, I will explain. One third of newly created manufacturing jobs in the UK have been created in Scotland recently. UK firms employ one in five Scottish workers. Scottish exports to countries outside the UK had a value of £22 billion. Scottish exports to England, Wales and Northern Ireland totalled £44.9 billion. The Scottish banking sector was saved by the UK
	and the decisions of the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling).
	Leaving one economic union of 63 million to join one of 330 million and expecting an equivalent say in monetary policy is an absurd notion, while a race to the bottom with Ireland when it comes to corporation tax rates does not fill me with optimism—quite the reverse. Likewise, relying on oil when we have experienced 12 consecutive years of decline in the amount of gas and oil extracted from the North sea is not wise. It is a dwindling resource, not a foundation for the future.

William Bain: My right hon. Friend is making an exceptional and passionate case for economic co-operation within the United Kingdom. Does he share my concern that, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, by 2040 we will see an elevenfold decline in oil and gas revenues? Does that not demonstrate why, if we are to diversify the economy, we should do it from a position of strength within the UK?

Tom Clarke: That is an excellent point, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend makes it.
	Last weekend, I was in a town centre of my constituency talking to my constituents and listening to their views, mainly on independence. I am bound to say that my experience was clear and unequivocal: there is no appetite in Scotland for a referendum, and people are curious to know why, if we insist on having one, we have to wait until 2014. They are worried about issues of concern to this House: unemployment, food prices, energy prices, petrol prices and much more. People are struggling to cope financially, and for many a referendum is a complete and utter waste of time and money, but that is the reality we face, so let us have the debate. Economies all over the globe are struggling with the worldwide downturn, so let us not pretend it is happening only in the UK. Of course some people want independence, and they are entitled to that view—I respect it, but disagree profoundly with them. When I visit schools in my constituency, I find that some pupils want independence, but the vast majority do not want to separate Scotland from the United Kingdom.

Frank Roy: When my right hon. Friend was out on the streets of Coatbridge on Saturday, how many people came up to him and said, “I would like an independent Scotland to join Schengen and to have the euro as my currency”?

Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I cannot remember anyone saying that. I remember what I would describe as a great surge among my constituents against independence and them telling me to get down here and fight what they are opposed to: separatism.
	Still talking about young people, I recently visited Cardinal Newman school in Bellshill—an important part of Scotland, represented by my hon. Friend and I —and spoke to a modern studies class. At the end, I asked about a subject that we did not touch on in our earlier discussion. I asked, “How many people here would reduce the voting age to 16 for the referendum?” Eight voted for, 22 voted against. I hope that the
	independent Electoral Commission will decide such matters, not those who have abused powers whenever they have had the opportunity.

Jim McGovern: I recently visited a secondary school in my constituency. Quite a few pupils in the fourth and fifth years said it seemed crazy to them that in November they could not buy a packet of sparklers, but that they might be allowed to vote on the future of the country.

Tom Clarke: That is an interesting point and I am glad my hon. Friend has made it.
	I am no different from the constituents I have described. In the last Parliament—my hon. Friends will not be surprised that I am raising this issue—I worked with my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), now the shadow Chancellor. Our joint activity produced £340 million to help children with disabilities throughout the United Kingdom. Scotland’s share was £34 million, but none of the money was ever seen by children with disabilities. Sadly, children with disabilities did not receive one penny of the cash. It became known as the missing millions. Obfuscation was the response from the First Minster to questions posed by Wendy Alexander and Johann Lamont. The First Minster was given every opportunity to come clean on what had happened to the money. I wrote to him and asked for a meeting. He replied that he was too busy and his diary too full, but he passed my office on at least six occasions on his way to and from a neighbouring by-election, and I passed him on the stairs when he was down here voting against the Labour Government.
	That was a shocking and disgraceful decision by a Scottish Government led by Mr Salmond. Indeed, that high-handed imperious attitude cast a doubt in my mind about whether the First Minister could ever be trusted as the leader of a country. In the last few years the SNP has attempted to define Scottish patriotism to the outside world—a patriotism that in their hands is simple to the point of being simple minded, self-loving to the point of being self-deceiving, and nostalgic to the point of being destructively naive. I have greater faith that the people of Scotland have a great sense of what is right and what is wrong, and will vote accordingly when the time comes.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. In order to try to accommodate everyone who wants to take part in this debate, I am changing the time limit to seven minutes. Depending on how long each speaker takes, it might be necessary to revise it again downwards before the end of the debate.

Frank Doran: Our debates on Scottish issues are often tribal, so I was not surprised by the comments of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) or the degree of fundamentalism he showed in his speech, although I was surprised at his arrogance and his assumption that after an independence referendum the Scottish people would enter some sort of nirvana. That is not quite consistent with our history at any time I can recall.
	The way the hon. Gentleman approached the whole issue underlines one of the major problems with this debate: the lack of fact. If we look ahead at what sort of country an independent Scotland might be—and we need to, because that is one of the things that anyone taking the referendum seriously would want to know—we can see what the various sides of the argument are presenting us with. What the Scottish Government are presenting us with at the moment is: “We’ll keep the monarch”, “We’ll keep the pound sterling”—perhaps—“and the Bank of England as our central bank”, and “We’ll remain part of the EU,” although that is still an open question. I was quite taken by what Mr Barroso—in effect, the chief executive of the European Union, who should know a thing or two about these things—said about an independent Scotland having to reapply. Mr Salmond leapt to his feet and said, “No we won’t. I know better.” That is basically the way all this has proceeded.
	We are not being presented with facts; as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) said, they are assertions. I would be a wee bit kinder than that: they might be aspirations, but they are more likely the product of politicians who want to remove difficult issues from the agenda before the referendum. We would see a very different Scotland afterwards if it were outside the EU, forced to create its own central bank and introduce a new currency. I mention the currency because the only other similar experience that I am aware of is when the Czech Republic and Slovakia split. I think it was the Czech Prime Minister who said that they had agreed to keep the same currency, but within a matter of weeks that decision was changed and a new currency had to be created. I cannot see a Scotland in the same situation being any different, even if I believed that that was the intention. However, what we know so far—about the monarch, the pound sterling, the Bank of England as the reserve bank and being part of the EU—does not sound very much like independence to me.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Frank Doran: The hon. Gentleman has intervened many times and thereby had more than 10 minutes already. I would rather make my own contribution to the debate.
	It is important that we have facts. One area where that is most important is the economy of an independent Scotland. It is quite clear from all their forecasts that the current Scottish Government would rely heavily on North sea oil revenues. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) has already made the point from the Front Bench, but I want to give a bit more detail, because it is extremely important that accurate facts are readily available. The first point to consider about the oil and gas industry is just how volatile these commodities are. Prices can rise or fall very quickly. I am old enough to remember in the 1980s when the oil price went from $32 a barrel to $8 a barrel virtually overnight. We lost more than 50,000 jobs in the north-east of Scotland when that happened. An independent country would have found it difficult to survive that event. Unless we are talking about a prosperous middle eastern country with no resources other than oil, it is very dangerous to rely on oil and gas for the economy.
	We have to look at the research. The most accurate and trusted UK commentator on the oil and gas industry is Professor Alec Kemp of Aberdeen university. For decades, he and his colleague Linda Stephen have studied the UK oil and gas industry, and their regular reports are respected and accepted throughout the industry. The most recent report looks at the prospects for activity on the UK continental shelf following the recent oil tax changes. The report is very detailed and considers the prospects for oil and gas production in the next 30 years in the UK sector. In the last two years production has declined, partly because of the tax changes in the 2010 Budget, but also as a result of the large increase in unplanned shutdowns. That has had an almost immediate effect on the amount of revenue coming into the Exchequer. Also, the North sea infrastructure is very old, and there has been a large number of unplanned shutdowns.
	The report details scenarios in which the oil price is $70 a barrel, and the gas price 40p a therm. The potential number of fields in production in 2042— 30 years from now—will fall from 300 to about 60. In that same scenario, oil and gas equivalent production would fall from today’s level of about 1.8 million to 584,000 barrels a day. That is at a price of $70 dollars a barrel and 40p a therm. At a price of $90 dollars and 55p, production would fall from 1.8 million barrels of oil equivalent a day to 520,000. Most of the money and energy would go into decommissioning the North sea platforms that were being rendered redundant, and I do not think it appropriate for a new country to build its economy around the destruction of its most productive industry. We need to see many more such facts on the table before anyone can make a serious decision about what is best for our country.

John Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) talked about how, come independence, the Scots would be able to walk tall. I have been to Perth, and I have not noticed anyone walking with their head bowed of late. I know plenty of Scots who walk tall. Scotland walks tall; it is only little-minded people who do not.
	“Scotland and the Union” is the title of our debate today. There would be no Union without Scotland. Scotland and England came together to form the Union under the two Crowns more than 300 years ago, and we have moved on since then. Who would have thought that, 300 years on, we would be having a debate and a referendum on how we might split ourselves up after all this time? The Scots have defended the Union with their lives and with their labour for centuries. We have led battles on the battlefield, and we have led in science and technology. The Scots not only pull their weight; they over-pull their weight. As a nation, we walk tall and we hold our heads high. Scots are known throughout the world for that. There are probably more Scots outside Scotland than in it, and as we get further away from home, we often get more nationalistic, with a small n.
	I have great concerns about the way in which Scotland is being governed at the moment. It has a majority Government, but there is no scrutiny of any of the Bills that the Government pass or of any of the work they do. They have a committee system that is very similar to
	our own Select Committee system. In our system, when a Member joins a Select Committee, they do so not as a member of a party. Their job is to scrutinise the Government or the people who are running the industry of our country. We do not do that with any party bias. In Scotland, however, there is no scrutiny. The Committees are being run with a party bias. Whatever happens, the Scottish National party is right and everyone else is wrong. Any amendments that are tabled to a Bill are automatically shouted down.
	The bullying by the Scottish Government that seems to be going on is an absolute disgrace. People are being threatened, and companies are told that if they do not do as they are told, they will not get contracts. That is no way to run a country. It is certainly no way to run an independent country. I have great fears about that, and we should look seriously at how the scrutiny of Government Bills is carried out in Scotland.
	It will be no surprise to anyone that I also want to mention shipbuilding. Shipbuilding on the Clyde has sustained Scotland for centuries. When the tobacco trade first started up, the development of shipbuilding on the Clyde created employment and made Glasgow the second biggest city in the empire. That would never have happened if we had not been part of the British empire and of Great Britain. We led then, and I believe that, in many ways, we lead now. The Type 45 destroyer is the best ship of its kind anywhere in the world. It is envied by the Americans, by the Russians and by anyone who has any idea of what a destroyer should look like. It is a cut above everything else.
	We would not have those ships without the decision by the British Government to build them. If the last Labour Government had not secured the procurement of those ships, the Clyde would now be closed. I have absolutely no doubt that, under independence, the Clyde would close almost the next day, and that 3,500 jobs would be lost—

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Robertson: Not this side of hell freezing over!
	The Scottish Government want to sell thousands of jobs, and there would be no more ships on the Clyde. I am a Glaswegian. I am Scottish, but I am probably a Glaswegian before anything else. I am also British and proud of it. I want people to vote in the referendum. I want us to get through it so that Scotland can get back to where it should be. When we have voted down the proposal for independence, we need to give serious consideration to how the governing is being done in the Scottish Parliament. I believe that the threatening and bullying, and the lack of scrutiny of Bills, needs to be looked at seriously. Those are the most important things.
	In the short time I have left, I also want to mention the cost of separation. There would be a cost not only to Scotland but to the United Kingdom. I have tabled a parliamentary question to various Departments to ask how much it would cost simply to re-badge everything from the day of independence. How many millions of pounds would it cost not only the people of Scotland but the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland? How much would every single taxpayer have to pay? And there would be further costs when jobs were lost as the companies that are threatening to move out did so. Just this week, BAE Systems was threatening to do that.
	Scotland is better together with the United Kingdom, and I have no doubt that we will remain one of the leading countries of the world.

Lindsay Roy: It is a great privilege to contribute to the debate after so many fine contributions from right hon. and hon. Members. I echo the sentiments of those on both sides of the House who have said that they are intensely proud to be Scottish or to have Scottish ancestry, but also to be British and to be citizens of the United Kingdom. I, too, fervently hold those joint allegiances. I would also say to the Scottish National party that it does not have a monopoly on care, passion and wisdom when it comes to the future of Scotland, and I do not believe its assertions about the land of milk and honey that it plans to create.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lindsay Roy: No, I am sorry; I want to make progress.
	Like most in this Chamber, I am ambitious for Scotland and for the United Kingdom. I agree that, with a strong Scottish Parliament within the UK, we have the best of both worlds. I have always believed that there is a better choice for the future than divorce, secession and separation. I want to illustrate that through an aspect of Scottish life that is dear to our hearts—namely, sporting activity.
	As an avid football fan, I have supported the Scottish team for many years, although I do not go back 140 years to the 0-0 draw. I would like to remind the House, however, of the 3-2 victory at Wembley in 1967. Just after England’s famous victory in the World cup, we beat them and, as a result, claimed our share of the Jules Rimet trophy. I have also suffered the trials and tribulations of a 5-1 defeat at Wembley, and vividly remember on the way back home the sign on the back of the bus on the M6 saying, “You couldnae make it 6”!
	In football and rugby, we have a strong tradition of Scottish teams representing us on the world stage. Times are tough, and I dearly wish that our football and rugby performances were better at the present time, but we support our teams passionately through thick and thin. However, is it not ironic that many of the players exhibiting such passion for their national team, who live outwith Scotland but give their all for their chosen country, will not be able to vote in the forthcoming referendum. They are good enough to play for chosen country, but are not allowed to vote on Scotland’s future. That applies to many people who support Scotland vigorously, too.
	While in some sports we have full decision-making powers to select our own national teams on the world scene in football and rugby, in others we have Scottish representatives who make selections for UK teams. Nowhere was that more visible than the recent UK-held Olympics, and indeed the Paralympics, where we pooled our human resources and facilities to produce the best UK performance ever, with 55 out of 542 participants from Scotland taking part in 21 out of the 26 Olympic sports.
	Did we not do well together and did not the Scots make an outstanding contribution to that success? There were individual golds for Sir Chris Hoy and Andy Murray, and an individual silver to Michael Jamieson—
	three individual highlights in a glittering array of success stories. Overall, team UK collectively won 65 individual awards at gold, silver and bronze. The sum total of medals for Scotland, however, was not three, but 14, as Scots teamed up with colleagues across the UK to achieve outstanding results, taking on the best that the world could offer—and winning!
	What more apposite illustration could we have to sum up better together? Without the combined resources across the UK, 11 Scots would not have won these coveted Olympic medals. Scots were integral parts of team UK, and there was a collective passion and team spirit to work together, sharing training and coaching as well as facilities to produce the best Olympic results ever.
	Some of our SNP colleagues have jumped on the bandwagon of UK success. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), where I was brought up, proudly stated:
	“Britishness is one of our many identities and one that will be forever cherished in an independent Scotland.”
	Yet the same hon. Gentleman has been recorded as saying:
	“I do not even know what Britishness is”.—[Official Report, 12 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 307WH.]
	Well, we do, and the Scots know of the many benefits that accrue from being British. This has been well illustrated so far in this debate across all aspects of British life. I am confident that on referendum day, the Scots will continue to see that things are best when we pull together and work with our neighbours, so we can spread the risks and share the rewards. I believe that Scots will see, as in our sports development, that we can still have the best of both worlds—teams representing Scotland, but participation in UK teams, too.

Pamela Nash: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not acceptable that our heroes from Scotland and Team GB, who had to train throughout the UK because we did not have the facilities and support ready in Scotland, not only cannot live in Scotland, but will not have a vote in this important referendum in 2014?

Lindsay Roy: I agree wholeheartedly, as that was exactly the point I made earlier.
	To conclude, we remain stronger and better together, sometimes as rivals but always, I trust, in the spirit of partnership and fair play.

Russell Brown: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) on managing to secure the debate.
	The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) often paints a bleak picture of my homeland in this place. It took him nine minutes to get to that point today, but I simply do not recognise what he is talking about when he speaks of a downtrodden nation seeking freedom. As a shadow Defence Minister, let me concentrate on defence and the defence of the nation as a whole.
	We are right in saying that Scots are rightly proud of our brave servicemen and women and the work they do across the world to keep us all safe. The British armed forces are the best and bravest in the world, and Scotland and the Scottish people are an integral part of that.
	The decision facing all Scots in the 2014 referendum is, in fact, a stark one: to continue to be part of the British Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and benefit from that safety and security, or to leave these services and go out on our own. After all we have been through together as a nation, why would we now want to go our separate ways and break away from the British armed forces?
	As well as the pride we feel in our armed forces and services, there are huge economic and employment benefits that Scotland’s leaving the UK would put at significant risk. There are 18,000 people employed in Scotland as either service personnel or Ministry of Defence civilian staff, with thousands more employed in the private sector as contractors and partners throughout Scotland.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Russell Brown: I am not giving way.
	Scotland’s largest work place is Her Majesty’s naval base on the Clyde, employing 6,500 people, and there is a work force 4,500 strong at the shipyards in Glasgow and Rosyth. Our shipbuilding industry and the jobs Scots have had in these yards for generations rely on the MOD for work. Scotland has a world-class defence industry and it is best protected by Scotland remaining in the UK. A separate Scotland would not be able to take advantage of UK contracts. About 40% of those UK defence contracts are non-competitively tendered within the UK; this means that they could not be extended to an independent Scotland. There would be no incentive for the remaining parts of the UK to outsource defence contracts to Scotland. For example, the Type 26 global combat ship is due to go into construction the year after the referendum, and the MOD has made it absolutely clear—a Defence Minister has said it twice here—that this contract will be open only to UK-based companies. We benefit from an MOD budget of £35 billion a year—the fourth largest in the world. The SNP has stated that an independent Scottish Government would commit to an annual defence budget of around £2.5 billion. This means that if a separate Scotland became part of NATO, it would have one of the lowest defence spends of any NATO country, at exactly the same time as our country would face massive transitional and new set-up costs.
	Professor Malcolm Chalmers, research director of the Royal United Services Institute, has said that the size of the Scottish defence procurement budget would be “pretty limited”, and he warns that much of Scotland’s defence industry would migrate southwards.
	The defence of our nation is of paramount importance, and it is hard to comprehend why the SNP, a political party predicated on separating Scotland from the UK, cannot answer some of the most basic questions about what defence policy in an independent Scotland would look like. [Interruption.] If there had been enough time and we did not have two votes ahead of us, perhaps SNP Members could have assisted us today by painting a picture of what the military might of a separate Scotland would look like. For the Army, how many
	regulars would there be, and how many reservists? Keeping in mind the fact that Scotland is surrounded by water on three sides, are we correct in assuming that Scotland would have a navy, and what would its strength be? Could we afford an air force? Would our military be in place to defend our borders, or would we be an expeditionary force?

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Russell Brown: I am not giving way, because I am coming to my conclusion before we hear the winding-up speeches.
	There is a positive case for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. No one doubts that our country is capable of being independent, but why should we want to lose all those advantages? At a time of immense and fast-evolving challenges throughout the world, with a plethora of security threats on the horizon, why on earth should we want to devote time and money to dividing our resources north and south of the border? We should be working together, throughout Britain, to remain vigilant against the constant threat of terrorism, combat the growing risk of cyber-crime, and prepare for the long-term security risks posed by climate change. Focusing on the defence of our nation, rather than plunging our country into uncertainty by splitting from the rest of the UK, is in Scotland’s national interest.
	Like so many other issues, defence highlights the strength of a Britain that works in co-operation. We are stronger, safer, and better together.

Margaret Curran: Let me begin by paying tribute to the members of the Backbench Business Committee, and thanking them for enabling us to debate this important matter. We have had an excellent debate. I particularly appreciated the speech of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), which demonstrated the warmth that Scots encounter throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, and the powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), who advanced clear economic arguments to demonstrate why Scotland works well when partnered with other nations in the UK.
	On the eve of St Andrew’s day, it is important for us to bear in mind that the UK Parliament is Scotland’s Parliament too. We have an opportunity to recognise the best that we have in Scotland and celebrate it, to pay tribute to our public sector service workers, and to appreciate the industry and effort that make Scotland so great in the cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen and, of course, many other places.
	We should also be pleased that Scotland is performing so significantly in the arts, in which I have a particular interest. As Vicky Featherstone leaves the great National Theatre of Scotland that she did so much to establish and goes to the Royal Court theatre, we mourn her loss and remember the contribution that she has made, but we are very proud that she is doing so well in England.
	What has been said today has clearly demonstrated the national pride that so many of us have in the great country of Scotland, but it also makes an important point that I hope will be remembered as we continue the debate on the referendum, namely that pride and patriotism in Scotland do not belong to a single political party.
	The national flag and our other symbols belong to us all. They do not belong to one person, or to one party. I hope that just because some of us disagree with the idea of separation, we will not be attacked for being anti-Scottish, and that such remarks are a thing of the past.
	Madam Deputy Presiding Officer—sorry, wrong Parliament! Many apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am about to pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Parliament, which may be why I made that mistake.
	Let me begin by paying tribute to the late Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Anniesland, Donald Dewar, the first of Scotland’s First Ministers, who, in his inaugural address to the Parliament, spoke of
	“a new voice in the land”,
	the voice of a democratic Parliament. Many of us were honoured to serve in that Parliament, which has proved to be very effective and strongly supported by the Scottish people.
	However, my argument, and the argument of the Labour party, has been and always will be that we are a party of devolution and believe in the great strength of devolution, but we are not a party of separation. We did not undertake our long, hard fight for devolution because we were obsessed with one constitutional arrangement over another; it was born out of a desire to see our system of government work in a way that would enhance the lives of people in the communities that we served. We saw the areas of life in which a Scottish Parliament could achieve more, but we also understood that, in the tradition of trade unionists and social reformers, the needs of the people could sometimes be met by our working together. A strong Scotland benefits the whole United Kingdom: that is the central theme of today’s debate. We can achieve more together than we can apart.

Mark Lazarowicz: The benefits of our remaining together are also demonstrated in the field of research in some of the world-class universities in Scotland. My own constituency contains universities that receive massive amounts of UK funding. That would clearly not be possible if we were separated. The academic sector provides another example of how well we can work together, and how much we would lose through separation.

Margaret Curran: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I shall say more about that subject later. I think that many of the institutions that we share would lose a great deal if they were broken up, and academics are now beginning to flag up that concern themselves.
	The motion that we are discussing draws attention to the great contribution that Scotland has made to the development of the Union. We can be both proudly Scottish and British. As many Members have pointed out, that was demonstrated during the Olympic and Paralympic games in the summer. We saw clear evidence of a modern, multicultural Britain that forward-looking Scottish people can be part of and proud of. As a small island made up of distinctive nations, we can and should work together to ensure that opportunity is given to everyone.
	The institutions we have built up throughout the UK bear testimony to the work that we have undertaken in these islands together. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), the
	NHS was established by a Welshman, to the benefit of the whole UK. The welfare state was devised and implemented by an Englishman, to the benefit of the whole UK. The Labour party itself was established by a Scotsman working in an English, and then a Welsh, constituency, again—in my view—to the benefit of the whole UK.
	There is another form of union that operates throughout Britain and has grown out of shared British experience: the trade union movement of the United Kingdom, which symbolises the act of working together to improve and enhance the rights of working people. On the eve of St Andrew’s day, we should acknowledge all the work of the trade unions in Scotland—along with their friends in Wales and England—to improve the conditions of working people throughout our countries. I would not want to put that at risk as we move towards separation.
	Together, we created throughout Britain the institutions that were needed to meet the challenges of the time, from the trade unions to the welfare state to the Scottish Parliament and, indeed, the Welsh and Irish national Assemblies. Now we must again look to the challenges of the modern time, and look at the paths that lie before us. Do we continue with devolution, as a strong Scotland in partnership with the United Kingdom, or do we opt for separation—for pulling away from our allies? The threats posed by the latter option have been described in detail during the debate.
	The debate about the future of Scotland is now well under way. If the past few months are anything to go by, it will certainly be a lively debate: the Scottish people will expect nothing less. As things stand, however, we face a raft of unanswered questions about the prospect of separation. I am told that Dundee university called its academic study of independence “Five Million Questions”. Let me focus on just one or two of those questions.
	Before a decision is made on the future of Scotland, the Scots making that decision require more detail in the debate. What will separation mean for Scottish mortgages or Scottish interest rates? What will happen to our pensions, and what about our family tax credits? How can we avoid a race to the bottom when it comes to levels of tax, wages and financial support? Those are the real questions that will determine the outcome of the referendum, and which really concern citizens, families, trade unions and businesses. However, I have to say that the SNP has so far failed to confront and failed to answer them.
	Scotland has a better future. We are only beginning to see the promise of devolution which Labour Members put into practice, and which we want to see continue and flourish in Scotland. Scotland can be a strong partner, working within a strong United Kingdom. That is the case that we will continue to argue—and make no mistake: if Scots vote for separation, it will be the end of devolution. We will make the case for Britain with passion and energy.
	This debate has highlighted the great strength of Scotland and the great strength of the Union, and what has been achieved by that. We have heard the history of how we have shared the risks and rewards, the resources and the opportunities. We must continue to do so in the future. This is not just about the successes of the past; it
	is about our prospects for the future. A time of increasing interdependence in the world is not a time for narrow nationalism, but a time for us to work better together for a stronger Scotland and a stronger Union.

David Mundell: May I begin by passing my best wishes and those of the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie)? We wish him a speedy recovery. That is the only matter on which there is likely to be agreement with the SNP this afternoon.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on securing the debate. She is a proud Scot, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). I entirely repudiate the sentiment implicit in the comments of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), that somehow only supporters of the nationalist cause can care about Scotland, be proud of Scotland, or make the case for Scotland. That is absolutely not the case.

Pete Wishart: I never made any such claim; everybody here is a proud Scot, and I said no such thing. The SNP has managed to get just one 10-minute speech in a three-hour debate. We have heard one side of the case—[Interruption.] We should have more time. [Interruption.] Even now I am being shouted down. Surely in this debate the SNP should have got more time than we have been allowed today.

David Mundell: I am not an expert on procedure, but I understand this debate is being curtailed because the SNP is going to force two Divisions. That is simply a stunt, and those of us who are involved in Scottish politics are very familiar with the SNP preferring to pull stunts than talk about the issues of the day.
	I particularly want to thank the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) for his excellent speech. It is heartening to hear Members from other parts of the United Kingdom state how much importance they place on Scotland remaining in the UK. As he said, the whole of the United Kingdom would be the poorer if Scotland left.
	In 2014, people in Scotland will face their most important political decision in 300 years. A vote for independence in the referendum of that year is not just for Christmas 2014; it is for life. As the motion states:
	“Scotland has always made, and continues to make, a significant contribution to the UK over the 305 years of the Union”.
	The Government believe that Scotland is stronger within the United Kingdom, which Scotland helped to shape, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) said, but we also recognise that the biggest constitutional question of all needs to be settled once and for all. That is why Scotland’s two Governments worked together constructively to reach an agreement on the referendum process. Regardless of the result, that constructive relationship will of course continue as we move forward. That does not mean that in the unlikely event of a yes vote, the remaining UK would facilitate Scotland’s every wish, any more than an independent Scotland would unquestioningly facilitate the wishes of the remaining UK. Inevitably—although some have sought to deny it today—there would be two
	separate countries and therefore two sets of interests, sometimes mutual, sometimes at odds, as is currently the case with our closest international allies and as will always be the case between separate, sovereign states.
	The SNP likes to talk about partnership and about neighbours working together. These days, it even likes to talk about us all being British, even though the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire told us previously he did not know what Britishness was and had never felt British in his life. You couldn’t make it up, but the SNP does. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North West highlighted, the SNP amendment even pretends that it can wrench Scotland out of the UK and nothing will have changed. Do not be fooled: working together is what the United Kingdom is all about, but the SNP wants to break it up. Partnership is what the United Kingdom is all about, but the SNP wants to rip it up. If Scotland votes for independence in 2014, it will leave the United Kingdom—leave all that we have achieved together over the past 300 years and all that we will continue to achieve by remaining together.

Gregg McClymont: The credibility of the First Minister has been a central issue in this debate. What does the Minister make of Justice Leveson’s finding on the First Minister’s attempt to lobby on behalf of Sky and the possibility that that might have rendered the Government’s decision on the Sky issue unlawful?

David Mundell: I do not find that surprising. On several recent occasions the First Minister has been brought before the Scottish Parliament to explain things he has said that have been found to be untrue.
	By putting together the various aspects of the debate—the economics, the international influence question, the fact that we Scots helped to make this United Kingdom —we get a compelling case for Scotland remaining in the UK, and many Members have made that case today. The UK Government are looking forward to making the positive case for Scotland within the United Kingdom. Today we have shown why twice as many Scots want to remain in the UK than support independence. They are people who know the difference between patriotism and nationalism; people who know, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) said, that the saltire is a symbol of our nation, not of nationalism; people who know that being Scottish and British is not a contradiction but is the best of both worlds, whereas the SNP wants to take our Britishness away from us; people who know that Scotland helps put the “Great” into Great Britain and make our Kingdom united—

Mark Lazarowicz: rose —

David Mundell: People like the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure will contribute positively to the debate.

Mark Lazarowicz: Yesterday I had the privilege to attend the launch of the green investment bank in Edinburgh. It is supported by all parties, including the SNP, and it is a wonderful example of the UK working together. It is the UK green investment bank, and it is hard to see how it could have been headquartered in Edinburgh if Edinburgh had been in a separate state.

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the positive benefits that flow to Scotland from remaining part of the UK, and about the positive benefits the UK gets from Scotland’s expertise in financial services, which was one of the key reasons that led to the green investment bank being headquartered in Edinburgh.
	This has been a heated debate, as such debates always are, for the topic is very important to the people of Scotland and the people of the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that people, including me, who know in their bones that we are better together will deliver the result Scotland and the United Kingdom wants in the referendum in 2014. We do not fear the debate to come; we welcome it—and we would have liked this afternoon’s debate to have been a little longer, rather than its being curtailed by having two meaningless votes.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), for their excellent summing up of this good and lively debate. As the argument is advanced in the country as a whole over the next two years, it will be won in the hearts as well as the heads of the people—not only the people who will have the privilege of a vote, but everyone else, who will take part in the debate and have their voices heard throughout the whole of our United Kingdom.

Pete Wishart: rose—

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman did not take a single intervention from anyone and I have one minute to speak. He has said more than enough. He said that the word “separation” is chilling to him; it is chilling to me, too, and to everyone who believes that we are better together as a United Kingdom.
	As far as heads are concerned, we have heard some good facts and figures this afternoon, and I hope that they will be repeated over and again so that people with a vote in the referendum understand the reality of what separation would mean for Scotland and the whole United Kingdom. As far as hearts are concerned, I turn, as ever, to Robert Burns, who wrote in the most powerful verse of his excellent poem “The Dumfries Volunteers”:
	“O, let us not, like snarling tykes,
	In wrangling be divided,
	Till, slap! come in a unco loun,
	And wi’ a rung decide it!
	Be Britain still to Britain true,
	Amang oursels united!
	For never but by British hands
	Maun British wrangs be righted!”

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 5, Noes 321.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 334, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House believes that Scotland has always made, and continues to make, a significant contribution to the UK over the 305 years of the Union; notes the strong and enduring bonds that exist between Scotland and the other nations of the UK; further notes its shared history and the contribution that the Scottish people have made to public life in the UK in politics, academia, trade unions and the armed forces; notes the contribution that Scotland’s businesses make to the UK economy and their particular expertise in cutting edge industries such as life sciences and engineering; further notes that a referendum on separating Scotland from the rest of the UK will be held before the end of 2014; and believes that Scotland is better off as part of the UK and the rest of the UK is better off together with Scotland.

Leveson Inquiry

David Cameron: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on today’s report from Lord Justice Leveson. As we consider the report, we should consider the victims. We should remember how the parents of Milly Dowler, at their most vulnerable moment, had their daughter’s phone hacked and were followed and photographed, how Christopher Jefferies’ reputation was destroyed by false accusations, how the mother of Madeleine McCann, Kate, had her private diary printed without her permission and how she and her husband were falsely accused of keeping their daughter’s body in their freezer. These victims, and many other innocent people who have never sought the limelight, have suffered in a way that we can barely begin to imagine.
	That is why last summer I asked Lord Justice Leveson to lead an independent inquiry. It had the power to see any document and summon any witness to be examined under oath by a barrister in public. It has been, as Lord Justice Leveson says,
	“the most public and the most concentrated look at the press that this country has seen.”
	I would like to thank Lord Justice Leveson and his entire team for the work they have undertaken.
	Lord Justice Leveson makes findings and recommendations in three areas: on the relationship between the press and the police; on the relationship between the press and politicians; and on the relationship between the press and the public. Let me take each in turn.
	First, on the press and the police, Lord Justice Leveson makes it clear that he does not find a basis for challenging the integrity of the police, but he does raise a number of areas that he felt were a cause for public concern, such as tip-offs, off-the-record briefings and, more broadly, “excessive proximity” between the press and the police. He makes a number of recommendations, including: national guidance on appropriate gifts and hospitality; record-keeping of contact between very senior police officers and journalists; and a 12-month “cooling-off” period for senior police officers being employed by the press. These recommendations are designed to break the perception of an excessively cosy relationship between the press and the police, and we support them.
	When I set up the inquiry, I also said that there would be a second part to investigate wrongdoing in the press and the police, including the conduct of the first police investigation. That second stage cannot go ahead until the current criminal proceedings have concluded, but we remain committed to the inquiry as it was first established.
	Next, on the relationship between politicians and the media, as Lord Justice Leveson has found,
	“over the last 30-35 years and probably much longer, the political parties of UK national Government and of UK official Opposition, have had or developed too close a relationship with the press in a way which has not been in the public interest.”
	I made that point last summer when I set up the inquiry, and at the same time I set in train reforms to improve transparency. We are the first Government ever to publish details of meetings between senior politicians and proprietors, editors or senior executives, as Lord Justice
	Leveson recommends in his report. He also recommends disclosing further information on the overall level of interaction between politicians and the press. That would apply to all parties, and on the Government’s behalf I can say that we accept the recommendation.
	During the course of the inquiry a number of serious allegations were made. I want to deal with them directly. First, it was alleged that my party struck a deal with News International. That allegation was repeated again and again on the Floor of this House and at the inquiry itself. Lord Justice Leveson looked at this in detail and rejected the allegation emphatically. Let me read his conclusion:
	“The evidence does not, of course, establish anything resembling a ‘deal’ whereby News International’s support was traded for the expectation of policy favours.”
	Those who repeatedly made these allegations, including Members of this House and the former Prime Minister, should now acknowledge that they were wrong.
	Secondly, it was alleged that I gave my right hon. Friend, the then Culture Secretary, now the Health Secretary, the responsibility of handling the BSkyB bid in order to fix the outcome. Lord Justice Leveson states clearly that
	“the evidence does not begin to support a conclusion that the choice of Mr Hunt was the product of improper media pressure...still less an attempt to guarantee a particular outcome to the process”—
	another allegation repeatedly made, and again shown to be wrong.
	Thirdly, there was the criticism that the then Culture Secretary had rigged the handling of the BSkyB bid. Again, today’s report rejects that as well. My right hon. Friend, it says,
	“put in place robust systems to ensure that the remaining stages of the bid would be handled with fairness, impartiality and transparency”.
	Indeed, Lord Justice Leveson goes further, concluding that my right hon. Friend’s
	“extensive reliance on external advice...was a wise and effective means of helping him to keep to the statutory test”.
	He concludes that
	“there is no credible evidence of actual bias”.
	Of course, as my right hon. Friend has said, there are lessons to learn about how quasi-judicial decisions are made, and we must learn those lessons. But let me say this: my right hon. Friend, now the Health Secretary, has endured a stream of allegations with great dignity. This report confirms something that we on this side of the House knew all along—we were right to stand by him. Let me also say this: Lord Justice Leveson finds in respect of my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary that he
	“acted with scrupulous care and impartiality”.
	Next, and most important of all, let me turn to what Lord Justice Leveson says about the relationship between the press and the public. As he says very clearly, even after 16 months of this inquiry, he remains
	“firmly of the belief that the British press—all of it—serves the country very well for the vast majority of the time.”
	But on the culture, practices and ethics of some in the press, his words are very stark. He finds that
	“there have been too many times when, chasing the story, parts of the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist.”
	He cites
	“press behaviour that, at times, can only be described as outrageous.”
	He catalogues a number of examples of such behaviour, going wider than phone hacking. He refers to
	“a recklessness in prioritising sensational stories, almost irrespective of the harm that the stories may cause and the rights of those who would be affected”.
	He finds that
	“when the story is just too big and the public appetite too great, there has been significant and reckless disregard for accuracy.”
	And he reports
	“a cultural tendency within parts of the press vigorously to resist or dismiss complainants almost as a matter of course.”
	In a free society, the press are subject to criminal law, civil law and requirements for data protection, but there should be a proper regulatory system as well to ensure that standards are upheld, complaints are heard, and there is proper redress for those who have been wronged. That is what the current system should have delivered. It has not. As Lord Justice Leveson says, the Press Complaints Commission is
	“neither a regulator, nor fit for purpose to fulfil that responsibility.”
	That is why changes are urgently needed. We welcome the fact that the press industry itself has put forward its own proposals for a new system of regulation, but we agree with Lord Justice Leveson that these proposals do not yet go far enough.
	In volume IV of the report, Lord Justice Leveson sets out proposals for independent self-regulation organised by the media. He details the key “requirements” that an independent self-regulatory body should meet, including independence of appointments and funding, a standards code, an arbitration service, and a speedy complaint-handling mechanism. Crucially, it must have the power to demand up-front, prominent apologies and impose up to million-pound fines. These are the Leveson principles. They are the central recommendations of the report. If they can be put in place, we truly will have a regulatory system that delivers public confidence, justice for the victims, and a step change in the way the press is regulated in our country. I accept these principles, and I hope that the whole House will come in behind them. The onus should now be on the press to implement them—and implement them radically.
	In support of this, Lord Justice Leveson makes some important proposals. First, he proposes some changes to the Data Protection Act that would reduce the special treatment that journalists are afforded when dealing with personal data. We must consider this very carefully, particularly the impact that it could have on investigative journalism. Although I have been able to make only preliminary investigations about that proposal since reading the report, I am instinctively concerned about it.
	Secondly, Lord Leveson proposes changes to establish a system of incentives for each newspaper to take part in the system of independent regulation. I agree that there should be incentives and believe that those he sets out, such as the award of costs and exemplary damages in litigation, could be effective. He goes on to propose legislation that would help to deliver those incentives and, crucially, that would provide
	“an independent process to recognise the new self-regulatory body”.
	That would, he says,
	“reassure the public that the basic requirements of independence and effectiveness were met and continue to be met.”
	I have some serious concerns and misgivings on that recommendation. They break down into issues of principle, practicality and necessity.
	The issue of principle is that, for the first time, we would have crossed the Rubicon of writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land. We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and a free press. In this House, which has been a bulwark of democracy for centuries, we should think very, very carefully before crossing that line.
	On the grounds of practicality, no matter how simple the intention of the new law, the legislation required to underpin the regulatory body would be more complicated. Paragraphs 71 and 72 of the executive summary begin to set out what would be needed in the legislation, which would, for example, validate the standards code and recognise the powers of the new body. Page 1772 in volume IV of the full report says that the new law
	“must identify those legitimate requirements and provide a mechanism to recognise and certify that a new body meets them.”
	The danger is that that would create a vehicle for politicians, whether today or some time in the future, to impose regulation and obligations on the press—something that Lord Justice Leveson himself wishes to avoid.
	Thirdly, on the grounds of necessity, I am not convinced at this stage that statute is necessary to achieve Lord Justice Leveson’s objectives. I believe that there may be alternative options for putting in place incentives, providing reassurance to the public and ensuring that the Leveson principles of regulation are put in place. Those options should be explored.
	These questions, including those about data protection, are fundamental questions that we must resolve. I have therefore invited the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to join me in cross-party talks, starting immediately after this statement. But let me be clear: a regulatory system that complies with the Leveson principles should be put in place rapidly. I favour giving the press a limited period of time in which to do that. They do not need to wait for all the other elements of Lord Justice Leveson’s report to be implemented. While no one wants to see full statutory regulation, let me stress that the status quo is not an option. Be in no doubt: we should be determined to see Lord Justice Leveson’s principles implemented.
	There is much that we in this country can be proud of: the oldest democracy in the world; freedom of speech; a free press; frank and healthy public debate. But this report lays bare that the system of press regulation that we have is badly broken and has let down victims badly. Our responsibility is to fix it. The task for us now is to build a new system of press regulation that supports our great traditions of investigative journalism and free speech, that protects the rights of the vulnerable and the innocent, and that commands the confidence of the whole country. I commend this statement to the House.

Edward Miliband: May I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement? May I say straight away that in the days and weeks ahead
	I will seek to convince him and this House of Commons that we should put our faith in the recommendations of Lord Justice Leveson that were delivered to us today? I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not yet there, but I hope to convince him over the days ahead that that is where we should go. We should put our trust in Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations.
	Let me begin by paying tribute to and thanking Lord Justice Leveson and his team for the painstaking, impartial and comprehensive way in which they conducted the inquiry. I thank Lord Justice Leveson for the clarity with which he has explained his report today.
	Most of all, I want to join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the innocent victims who gave evidence to the inquiry: people who did not seek to be in the public eye, who suffered deep loss and grief, and who then faced further trauma at the hands of the press. It is easy to forget, but without the revelations last July about what happened to Bob and Sally Dowler, and to their daughter, and their courage in speaking out, we would not be here today. Gerry and Kate McCann suffered so much and showed much courage. Kate McCann, whose daughter remains missing, saw her private diary published by theNews of the World for the sake of a story. Those people gave evidence to the inquiry to serve the wider public interest, and I am sure the whole House pays tribute to their courage. They must be at the forefront of our minds today.
	Much has been written about the reasons for this inquiry. A free press is essential to a functioning democracy, and the press must be able to hold the powerful—especially us politicians—to account without fear or favour. That is part of the character of our country. At the same time, however, I do not want to live in a country where innocent families such as the McCanns and the Dowlers can see their lives torn apart simply for the sake of profit, and where powerful interests in the press know they will not be held to account. This is about the character of our country.
	It turns out that there never was just one “rogue reporter”. Lord Justice Leveson concludes that a whole range of practices, from phone hacking to covert surveillance, harassment and other wrongful behaviour were widespread and in breach of the code by which the press was supposed to abide. I recognise the many decent people who work for our country’s newspapers, and not every newspaper did wrong. However, Lord Justice Leveson concludes that
	“it is argued that these are aberrations and do not reflect on the culture, practices or ethics of the press as a whole. I wholly reject this analysis.”
	That will not come as a surprise to many people, including Members of this House. Lord Justice Leveson also concludes that there has been by politicians
	“a persistent failure to respond...to public concern about the culture, practices and ethics of the press”.
	We must all take responsibility for that, and the publication of this report marks the moment we must put that right by upholding the freedom of the press and guaranteeing protection and redress for the citizen. As the Prime Minister himself rightly said at the Leveson inquiry:
	“If the families like the Dowlers feel this has really changed the way they would have been treated, we would have done our job properly.”
	I agree.
	Let us be clear about Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals, why they differ from the present system, and why I believe they should be accepted in their entirety. He proposes:
	“A genuinely independent regulator, with effective powers to protect and provide redress for the victims of abuse.”
	He also gives responsibility for establishing that system to the press, as now. That is why statute is important.
	Lord Justice Leveson provides a crucial new guarantee that we have never had before. He recommends that the media regulator, Ofcom, ensure that any system that is established passes the test we would all want applied—that it is truly independent and provides effective protection for people such as the McCanns and the Dowlers. To make that guarantee real, he recommends that both Ofcom’s role and the criteria of independence and effectiveness be set out in statute—a law of this Parliament. That is why we can get to truly independent regulation of the press, guaranteed by law.
	I believe that Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals are measured, reasonable and proportionate, and Labour Members unequivocally endorse the principles set out and his central recommendations. We support the view that Ofcom is the right body for the task of recognition of the new regulator, and the proposal that the House should lay the role of Ofcom down in statute. We endorse the proposal that the criteria any new regulatory body must meet should be set out in statute. Without that, there cannot be the change we need. Lord Justice Leveson is 100% clear on that in his report.
	Lord Justice Leveson has, I believe, made every effort to meet the concerns of the industry. Some people will say that this report does not go far enough or that the reforms will not work because the press will not co-operate. I believe that the press has a major responsibility to come forward and show it will co-operate with this system—a comprehensive reform of the kind proposed by Lord Justice Leveson.
	Lord Justice Leveson also says that if we cannot achieve a comprehensive system involving all major newspapers, we should go to the necessary alternative: direct statutory regulation. I believe that Lord Justice Leveson has genuinely listened to what the press has said, and acted with the utmost responsibility. Editors and proprietors should now do the same. I believe that Lord Justice Leveson has genuinely listened to what the press have said and acted with the utmost responsibility. Editors and proprietors should now do the same.
	Let me also say—the Prime Minister did not touch on this—that Lord Justice Leveson also reaches important conclusions on the need to prevent too much influence in the media from ending up in one pair of hands. He proposes that there should be continuous scrutiny of the degree of media plurality and a lower cap than that currently provided by competition law. When the Prime Minister gets up to reply, will he take that forward?
	As the Prime Minister said, Lord Justice Leveson makes specific suggestions on greater transparency on meetings and contacts between politicians and the press. He says that that should be considered as an immediate need. I agree, and endorse the proposals, as the Prime Minister did.
	I welcome the Prime Minister’s offer of immediate cross-party talks on the implementation of the recommendations, and I am grateful for the conversations we have already had, but the talks must be about
	implementing the recommendations, not whether we implement them. In the talks, I want to agree a swift timetable for the implementation of the proposals. I want us to agree to legislate in the next Session of Parliament, starting in May 2013, and to have a new system up and running by the end of this Parliament—meaning 2015 at the latest. By the end of January next year, we should have an opportunity—the Opposition will make this happen if necessary—for the House to endorse and proceed with the Leveson proposals.
	We should and we can move forward together—wholeheartedly, now. We have 70 years and seven reports that have gone nowhere. Now is the time to act. Let me remind the House what David Waddington, then Home Secretary, said 20 years ago:
	“This is positively the last chance for the industry to establish an effective non-statutory system of regulation”.—[Official Report, 21 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 1126.]
	The case is compelling and the evidence is overwhelming. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make change that the public can trust. There can be no more last-chance saloons.
	In acting, let us remember the words of Bob and Sally Dowler at Leveson:
	“there is nothing that can rectify the damage that has been done to our family. All that we can hope for is a positive outcome from this Inquiry so that other families are not affected in the way we have been”.
	On behalf of every decent British citizen who wants protection for people such as the Dowlers and a truly free press—a press that can expose abuse of power without abusing its own—we must act.

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response. He is absolutely right to thank Leveson for the work he has done and the report he has produced. The right hon. Gentleman is also right to talk about the innocent victims and the enormous courage they have shown by appearing in front of the inquiry and telling their stories. He was also right to mention Leveson’s finding that all politicians, going back over decades, must take responsibility for a relationship between politicians and the press that got too close.
	Let me make a couple of the points on some of the things the right hon. Gentleman said. I note he said he strongly supports Ofcom carrying out the test of whether the regulatory system was compliant. That is something we need to look at in the cross-party discussions, because, however we go about this, it is important that we demonstrate the real independence of this regulatory system. Of course, the chair of Ofcom is appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We have to think about that, but we also have to consider that Ofcom is already a very powerful regulatory body. We should be trying to reduce concentrations of power rather than increase them. That is something we might want to discuss.
	One issue the right hon. Gentleman did not address—I hope we can address it in the cross-party conversations—is data protection law changes. We should not respond in too rapid a way to something as complex as that. We do not want to put in place something that wrecks proper investigative journalism in our country.
	On statutory regulation, I would make the point to the right hon. Gentleman that Leveson rightly rejects statutory regulation and says that we must move from the status quo and implement the principles of the report. I agree—that is absolutely vital. We do not want to be left in the position of having only statutory regulation as the alternative to the proposals he sets out. I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the talks should be business-like and that we should get on with them, but where I disagree with him is that we do not have to wait until those discussions are had to implement the report. The report needs to be implemented by the press taking the steps set out in the report to put in place the independent regulation that Leveson speaks about. They could start that right now.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. There is much interest, which I am keen to accommodate. I exhort colleagues please to help me to help them by asking short questions without preamble. I know the Prime Minister will oblige, as ever, with pithy replies.

Peter Tapsell: Did Lord Justice Leveson make any comments on the proprietorship of newspapers? Surely, one factor in the depression of press standards is that some owners of national newspapers have been bad men and sometimes foreigners with an ingrained hostility towards Britain, and their editors know that they can only keep their jobs by achieving the required levels of readership and advertising revenue by populist sensationalism, however immoral. Should ownership of British newspapers be confined to British nationals who are judged to be fit and proper for that role, as with television?

David Cameron: The report goes into enormous detail about the history and ownership of the press. Part of one of the volumes goes into immense detail, which my right hon. Friend can study, and perhaps that is the best answer to him. This point was raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Lord Justice Leveson does address concerns about plurality and media ownership and does say we need to make sure there is more plurality than would otherwise be guaranteed simply by competition policy. That is important, because we want to have not just a vigorous press, but a press that is in different—in wide—ownership as well.

Jack Straw: Does the Prime Minister not, however, appreciate that the argument made by Lord Leveson is not, as he says, for statutory regulation, which is not there, but in order to enforce and give backing to the proposals of the press? The fundamental flaw with the proposals of the press, as Lord Leveson clearly sets out, is not their intention, which I acknowledge is now an honourable one, but that it is impossible to deliver the independence proposed by the press themselves and the enforcement—for example, not least on penalties on legal costs—without some overarching form of statutory backing? It is not regulation—it is statutory backing. I plead with the Prime Minister to recognise the force of the argument, not that I am making, but that Lord Leveson makes.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right that Lord Justice Leveson is not recommending statutory regulation of the press. He wants to take steps so that we avoid statutory regulation of the press—I fully respect that. But in answer to his point, the system Lord Justice Leveson recommends is not a compulsory system. It does not guarantee that everyone takes part; it is still a voluntary system. Where we are in complete agreement is that Lord Justice Leveson does not want statutory regulation—neither do I. Lord Justice Leveson wants strong, independent regulation—that is what I want. He sets out the principles of strong, independent regulation—that is what we have got to put in place, and that is what the press should start to put in place straight away.

Malcolm Rifkind: The central requirement is a press complaints procedure that will not only be fully independent, but will restore public confidence. I ask the Prime Minister to look very objectively at the case as to whether an Act of Parliament would indeed enhance that credibility. I refer him in particular to paragraph 72 of the executive summary of the report, where Lord Leveson states that an Act of Parliament would
	“reassure the public that the basic requirements of independence and effectiveness were met and continued to be met”.
	I believe that that is a very powerful argument, and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider it with all force.

David Cameron: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right—paragraphs 70, 71 and 72 are the absolutely key paragraphs of the report. But let me explain why I have misgivings about leaping straight to that conclusion. Once we start writing a piece of legislation that backs up an independent regulator, we have to write into that legislation what is its composition, what are its powers, what is its make-up, and we find pretty soon—I would worry—that we have a piece of law that really is a piece of press regulatory law. Now, that is an enormous step for us in this House of Commons to take, and we have to think about it very carefully before we leap into this new approach.

Frank Dobson: Does the Prime Minister not accept that, if he wants people to accept the report’s recommendations and conclusions generally, particularly the ones he likes, he cannot pick and choose, but should accept all the recommendations?

David Cameron: This is where I part company with the right hon. Gentleman: it is the job of the House of Commons to consider a report and what is right for this country to introduce. I highlighted the issue of the changes to the Data Protection Act because I was advised that they could have a serious effect on investigative journalism. It would be quite wrong, if we received a report of this magnitude and said in five minutes flat, “We’re going to implement every last piece of it”, without considering the consequences. A responsible Government will think about the consequences. I am absolutely clear, however, that the clear principles of Leveson-style regulation—on what the independent press regulator needs—are right.

Simon Hughes: Is the Prime Minister as clear as I am, reading paragraphs 70 to 76, that Lord Justice Leveson makes
	two things absolutely central—that there should not be legislation to establish a body to regulate the press, but that
	“it is essential that there should be legislation to underpin the independent self-regulatory system”?
	The word “essential” is a clear word. Does he accept it?

David Cameron: This is absolutely the key argument that has to be had in our cross-party discussions. Lord Leveson is saying that the statutory underpinning is necessary properly to give effect to this independent body. Of course, he intends it to be a very neat, very small piece of statute, but paragraph 71, for instance, states that the law would not
	“give any rights to these entities…except insofar as it would require the recognised self-regulatory body to have the power to direct the placement and prominence or corrections and apologies.”
	Once we try—and we have tried it—writing a law that provides for statutory underpinning that describes what the regulatory authority does, what powers it has and how it is made up, we soon find we have quite a big piece of law. That is the concern. We need to think very carefully before crossing that Rubicon.

Ben Bradshaw: How, without the statutory underpinning that Lord Leveson says is essential, does the Prime Minister think a new body could prevent a newspaper group simply from walking away or ignoring the new body’s findings?

David Cameron: Lord Leveson does not himself have an answer to the question of what happens if a newspaper walks away. His system is a voluntary system, so the same question applies to his system too.

John Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now almost universal agreement that we must have a strong new regulator, that it must be seen to be independent and that it must be established as quickly as possible? I strongly welcome his statement, however, that the question of whether the regulator should have statutory underpinning is something that Parliament needs to consider carefully, perhaps through a regular assessment of its effectiveness by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and that we should proceed to legislate only if it becomes absolutely clear that it will not function properly without it.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He has probably spent more time looking at this issue than almost any other Member of the House of Commons. As he said, what matters is the enormous consensus about what independent regulation should consist of, including the powers that are necessary. We all know we need million-pound fines, proper investigations, editors held to account and prominent apologies. That is what victims deserve and what we must put in place, but he is right that we need to think carefully before we pass legislation in the House.

Joan Ruddock: In his responses so far, the Prime Minister is splitting the House. This is not what the public expect of us. It would be a dereliction of our duty as politicians, if we did not establish the legal framework recommended by Lord Leveson, and I ask him to reconsider his position.

David Cameron: I think it would be a dereliction of our duty in the House of Commons, which has stood up for freedom and a free press, year after year, century after century, to cross the Rubicon by legislating on the press without thinking about it carefully first. That is why it is right to have cross-party talks, why it is right to have a debate in the House and why it is right to listen to people such as the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

David Davis: May I for one welcome wholeheartedly the Prime Minister’s caution about using statute in this matter? I remind him that it was not a policeman, a regulator or even a judge who highlighted the hacking scandal; it was a member of our free press. As such, one of our highest priorities is to ensure that whatever we do preserves the independence and freedom of our press from Government intervention, because that is the best bastion of our freedoms.

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We have to get this right. It is very important that the regulation is put in place rapidly. That above all is the pressure that needs to be put on the media, but it is an important step we should consider before moving to statutory regulation.

Nigel Dodds: We cannot forget the victims in all this: the Dowler family, the McCann family, Christopher Jeffries and the other innocent victims who have suffered terribly. We absolutely support the absolute freedom of the press—there can be no statutory regulation of the press—but there needs to be proper redress for those who are wronged. The Prime Minister says he wants to think again about Leveson’s recommendations on statutory legislation. He talks about alternative options. Can he give us a flavour of what those options might be? There is a feeling among some that this may be more to do with party management than really dealing with the problems.

David Cameron: There is a variety of opinions right across the House. We have to be frank about this. I think it is important to consider the very big step of effectively passing statute on the press in this country. There are many independent non-statutory bodies in this country of very long standing. The real test is not whether this body is backed by statute or not; the real test is: can it fine newspapers? Can it call editors to account? Can it get front-page apologies? That is what people want to know and that is what we need to deliver.

Tim Farron: Does the Prime Minister accept that what we need is a rational and balanced approach to this, not an hysterical one? We are not being asked by Leveson to cross a Rubicon—barely even a brook. Perhaps the Prime Minister ought to consider the fact that the Irish system—Leveson proposes something similar—is already signed up to by The Times, the Daily Mail and The  Sun.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have got the Irish Defamation Act of 2009 in front of me. It runs to many, many pages, setting out many, many powers of the Irish Press Council. It is worth Members of the House studying the Irish situation
	and asking whether we want to have legislation of that extent on our statute book—which of course could then be amended at any moment, by any politician at any future point. That is an important consideration.

Chris Bryant: I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests; but that is rather the point. We all share an interest in this. Lord Leveson reserves his strongest condemnation for the political class in this country, because he believes that over years—because we have been too compromised, too craven or too cowardly—we have refused to act. We now have an independent figure telling us what to do. Surely if we do not do what he says, which is to provide a change in the law, there will be more Millie Dowlers, and that will be our fault.

David Cameron: I would also argue that one of the other problems with the political class is never saying sorry when they get it wrong. On 13 November 2012, the hon. Gentleman spoke about the
	“deal…secured between the Conservative party and News International”.—[Official Report, 13 November 2012; Vol. 32, c. 553WH.]
	We have heard not a word of regret from him. What matters most about this is putting in place a regulatory system that can make the victims proud. That is what is necessary. The fines, the apologies, the proper investigations—that needs to be done and it can be done right away.

Therese Coffey: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. There is a lot in the Leveson report that is to be welcomed. I share my right hon. Friend’s caution, but does not another important part of the evidence presented by Lord Leveson show that some of the smears against my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) were absolutely outrageous, including the Leader of the Opposition saying that he was a back channel for Murdoch?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Time after time we were told that my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) was backing the bid, not adjudicating on the bid. All sorts of allegations and smears were made. It is important that colleagues can read the report and see that he took the right decisions in the right way.

Gerald Kaufman: I declare an interest as someone who was Fleet Street staff journalist for 10 years. As such, I am instinctively opposed to statutory regulation of the press. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if that Rubicon, as he says, is not to be crossed, it will be up to the press to accept the recommendations of Leveson, to do that in full, to do that fast and to do that with all the proprietors involved? What happens next will of course be a matter for this House and the political parties, but above all it is a matter for the press.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The pressure should be on the press to take the steps that everybody now knows are necessary and that are set out in huge detail in the report. That is
	the best way to avoid the statutory regulation that Leveson does not want to see, that no one in this House should want to see, and that would make our country less free. He speaks very clearly about that issue.

Rob Wilson: After two and a half years of working closely with the former Culture Secretary, I know him to be a man of the highest integrity. Does the Prime Minister think that the Labour party should apologise in this House for making disgraceful and unfounded accusations which the Leveson report shows to be absolutely false?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We had to listen to allegation after allegation, conspiracy after conspiracy, smear after smear. Each one is put to bed comprehensively by the report.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the report and I accept all its conclusions. May I also welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to part 2 of the inquiry? I accept that we have to wait for the outcome of the criminal investigations, but the operations being conducted by the Metropolitan police, including Operation Weeting, could take up to three years to conclude. Will he give a commitment today to give them whatever resources they need in order to conclude the matter once and for all?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. One of the things that the victims have been most concerned about is that part 2 of the investigation should go ahead—because of the concerns about that first police investigation and about improper relationships between journalists and police officers. It is right that it should go ahead, and that is fully our intention.

Peter Lilley: The two scandals that gave rise to this inquiry were phone hacking and bribing the police, both of which are against the criminal law. Now, some 90 arrests have been made. Strangely, however, Lord Leveson concludes:
	“More rigorous application of the criminal law…does not and will not provide the solution.”
	Instead he goes off on building proposals for what would ultimately be statutorily underpinned regulation, which is largely irrelevant to what has happened. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on not going down that route, as that would not solve the problems that gave rise to the inquiry.

David Cameron: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support. I would, however, make the point that, while the press must always act within the law—they are subject to the criminal law, the civil law and the laws on data protection, and that is vitally important—there is also a role for strong, independent regulation. Those victims should not have had to wait for action through civil litigation, and they should not have had to wait until the criminal actions were taken. A proper regulatory system could have protected more of those people and prevented many more of them from becoming victims in the first place.

Angus Robertson: The Prime Minister will be aware that many of the aspects of any future press regulation, and related features such as criminal
	prosecution, defamation and policing, are devolved matters in Scotland. Will he take this opportunity to welcome the proposal by the First Minister that, in addition to a full debate on this question in the Scottish Parliament, there should be cross-party discussions and an independent implementation group, chaired by a Court of Session judge, which should consider how best to implement Lord Leveson’s proposals in the context of Scots law and the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament?

David Cameron: I will look carefully at what the First Minister says and at the proposals that he is making in this area. I also recommend that the hon. Gentleman have a look at what the report says about the First Minister.

Philip Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot simply farm out these important decisions, along with a blank cheque, to someone who is wholly unelected and unaccountable? Does he further agree that having the Government say to the press, “These are the specific steps that we need you to take; otherwise, we will either legislate or regulate” is a pretty rum form of self-regulation?

David Cameron: I agree with some of what my hon. Friend says, but it is important that we lay down very clearly what is expected of the press in terms of the independent regulatory system that needs to be put in place. What we cannot have is a continuation of the status quo; we need a proper investigative arm of a regulatory body, which needs to be able to levy fines, to insist on apologies and to be far more independent than it has been up to now. Frankly, on behalf of the victims and the public, this House is perfectly entitled to ask for those things. We should do, and if they were not put in place, we would have to take further action. That is the key to the Leveson approach, and it is one that I want to follow.

John McDonnell: I wonder whether we could achieve consensus on one of the recommendations in the report, where Leveson recommends the consideration by proprietors of the introduction of a conscience clause to protect journalists who refuse in any way to go against the code of practice. Will the Prime Minister join me in urging proprietors to meet the National Union of Journalists and whoever else to start working on introducing a conscience clause in contracts?

David Cameron: I am very happy to agree to that. There are many sensible recommendations that can be put into place, I would hope, as quickly as possible—some of the recommendations about the police and the Association of Chief Police Officers, and many of the recommendations about politicians and our relationship with the press. Those do not have to wait for anything, and as I have said, the press do not have to wait for any further discussions; they can start putting this regulation in place straight away.

Conor Burns: One of Lord Leveson’s recommendations is that we should legislate to introduce
	“a legal duty on the government to protect the freedom of the press”.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a Bill would be utterly alien to our traditions in this country? Will he join me in encouraging Lords Hunt and Black to look at the Leveson recommendations, to see if there are things within them that they could add to their recommendations, and to get on with the job so that we can restore robust confidence in a free press that is the cornerstone of a free society?

David Cameron: Frankly, I think we have to be tougher on Hunt and Black than that. We need to say very clearly that what has been proposed so far is progress on the Press Complaints Commission, but that it is not good enough. We need more changes; the public want more changes; the victims want more changes. It is not yet the sort of independent regulation that we can say is right or of which we can be proud. Leveson points out the weaknesses in the system, and we need to plug those gaps. The press need to plug those gaps, and as I say, there is nothing to stop them getting on with that straight away.

Paul Farrelly: Does the Prime Minister believe that the press themselves should be able to appoint or veto the appointment of the chairman of the press regulator? Many of his colleagues and a handful of colleagues in my party signed up to that model, with closed minds, even before Leveson reported.

David Cameron: One of the points that Leveson makes about the Hunt-Black model is that it needs to be more independent. The Press Complaints Commission was ineffective not only in not being able to investigate or in not having clear enough powers; it was not independent enough. This form of regulation needs to be independent regulation, as set out by Leveson.

Andrew George: The Prime Minister began his statement by praising the courage of the victims of press intrusion. Does he also respect the wishes of those victims about the outcome of this inquiry?

David Cameron: Yes, of course. What is absolutely vital is that we put in place a regulatory system that they can see has got real teeth. They want to know that it is independent; they want to know that it can achieve big fines; they want to know that it can call editors to account. We could, of course, completely obsess about the issue of statutory underpinning. That is one issue; there are many other issues about what makes for good, strong, robust and independent regulation. That is what we should focus on.

John Denham: The Prime Minister has asked the House to reject Leveson’s central and essential recommendation of legislation on the grounds, he says, that it would be too difficult to do well. Would it not have shown more respect for the work of Lord Leveson and for the victims for the Prime Minister to have sat down on a cross-party basis to examine how the recommendations in paragraph 70 could be implemented, instead of rejecting them within 24 hours of receiving the report?

David Cameron: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that that is right at all. The central recommendation of Lord Leveson is to
	put in place the principles of independent regulation so as to avoid statutory regulation. Frankly, I do not think I would be doing my duty if I came to the House and said that every single aspect is absolutely fine without any changes. I am proud of the fact that we have managed to last for hundreds of years in this country without statutory regulation or mention of the press. If we can continue with that, we should. That seems the minimum that this House of Commons should consider in defending the freedom of our country.

Harriett Baldwin: The Prime Minister rightly started with the victims, many of whom were victims of the News of the World. We should bear in mind that the News of the World no longer exists, and that not all newspapers are like the News of the World. I am thinking of, for example, my local paper, the Worcester News, and the Malvern Gazette.
	What paragraph 135 of the executive summary effectively says is that, in the constituency of Witney, were the Prime Minister’s agent to have a personal dinner with someone who happened to work for the local paper, it would have to be recorded. What does the Prime Minister think of that particular recommendation?

David Cameron: Let me begin by responding to what my hon. Friend said first. In paragraph 19 of the summary, Lord Leveson makes a special point about Britain’s regional newspapers. He says that
	“their contribution to local life is truly without parallel.”
	He praises their role, and says how little they have been involved in the sort of damaging culture and practices to which the rest of the report refers.
	As for my hon. Friend’s second point, we must look very carefully at the recommendations for increased transparency. I think, frankly, that transparency is important. The public want to know what is the relationship between politicians on the one hand and the press on the other. If they can see how often you are meeting and whom you meet, they can see whether you have a balanced, proper, sensible relationship with the press or not. We have put transparency in place. I hear murmurings from Labour Members, but in 13 years they did not do a single thing about it.

Luciana Berger: Lord Justice Leveson is very clear about the importance of maintaining a plural media. Specifically, in paragraph 140 of the summary, he says:
	“There is no current option for the Government or regulators to step in to protect plurality if it is threatened by organic change in the market.”
	What plans has the Prime Minister to protect media plurality?

David Cameron: That is an excellent point, which was brought out in the debates when my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) was Culture Secretary. We need to look at this very carefully, because there is a gap in the law: Ofcom can only consider problems of plurality at the time of a merger or takeover. I think that the recommendations make a lot of sense, and that we should study them carefully.

Peter Bone: The Prime Minister must be congratulated on his courage in not doing the popular thing, and standing up for the freedom of the press. Will he respond to one specific small point? He referred to how close the Government, and politicians, have got to the press. Will he give an assurance now that, from tomorrow, the Government will not leak statements to the press in advance?

David Cameron: I think that in the last week we have seen two notable successes in that regard. In two cases, there has not been a bat’s squeak outside the House of Commons. I refer to the announcement of the new Governor of the Bank of England, Mr Mark Carney, and to the report that was published today. There has been not a leak, not a sentence, not a word. How different things were in the past.

Michael Meacher: Lord Leveson states that the selection of the key appointment panel which selects the chair and members of the crucial governing board should itself be independent of both the Government and the industry. Who would the Prime Minister expect to draw up a list of nominations, and who would make the final choice?

David Cameron: That is a very important question. In his report, Lord Justice Leveson gives a number of alternatives. He clearly prefers his model, but I think that the independence of those either judging an independent regulatory system or appointing people to it is absolutely vital. That is why I am concerned about the role that he puts forward for Ofcom. As I said earlier, the chair of Ofcom is appointed by the Secretary of State, and in my view that makes the two of them too close. In everything that we do, whether via legislation or by means of other backstops, we need to ensure that the people involved in this and the people judging this are properly independent.

Bob Blackman: Before coming to this place, I spent 12 years working in regulatory compliance for BT. I remember the shock wave that went through the organisation when Ofcom told BT that it regarded it as a non-compliant company. After that, a culture of compliance swept through the organisation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the press should regard this as their moment to ensure that a culture of compliance is brought into our press?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That, I hope, started as the Leveson inquiry got under way. Some of the things that were revealed during the inquiry about practices and culture in parts of the press were deeply disturbing. I think that quite a lot has already been done to address those, and to clean up the press’s act, but clearly more needs to be done. As I have said, the Hunt-Black regulatory alternative is not sufficient; more needs to be done to ensure that this culture change is driven through the press itself.

Meg Hillier: Lord Justice Leveson suggests that this new body should have strong powers to investigate a suspected breach of the code. Many of our country’s best investigative journalists are freelancers, however, so will the Prime Minister carefully consider the potential impact of such
	investigations on individuals who do a great deal to shine a light on areas that others do not want illuminated, and will he ensure that this issue is discussed in cross-party talks?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I am sure it will be covered in cross-party negotiations. I will just make the point again about the concerns expressed to me about the potential reforms to the Data Protection Act. If we were to try to treat journalists exactly the same as everybody else for the purposes of data protection, I think newspapers, programmes such as “Panorama” and others would make very strong representations about what that could mean for investigative journalism. That shows why we must think carefully about some of these recommendations; otherwise we could get something badly wrong.

Mark Reckless: The Prime Minister extended the inquiry’s terms of reference in response to the Home Affairs Committee’s concern that the Crown Prosecution Service had got the law wrong on phone hacking. Does the Prime Minister recognise that there are lessons for the CPS even in part 1 of the report, since while it exonerates the Director of Public Prosecutions, it criticises David Perry QC for failing to reacquaint himself with the relevant facts in law before advising him?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. From what I have seen in the report, Lord Justice Leveson is relatively complimentary about the work of the CPS and the decisions it took, but some of its workings do bear careful study.

Barry Gardiner: The Prime Minister is on record as saying he would implement Leveson as long as it was not “bonkers”. It now appears that he regards Leveson’s recommendation of statutory underpinning as bonkers. Can the Prime Minister therefore explain why Lord Leveson said that was essential?

David Cameron: What I have said is that the principles set out by Leveson of what independent regulation needs to include and what it needs to look like are absolutely right and should be put in place, but, frankly, we do not do our duty in this House if we do not examine these proposals properly and ask the relevant questions, and instead just wave through a change that will make a very big difference to our country. If we were to do that, we would not be operating properly.

Julian Huppert: One issue that arose is that data protection law is simply not taken seriously enough, because the sanctions are too light. The report recommends that sections 77 and 78 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 should be commenced. That has been recommended by the Justice Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and now Justice Leveson. Will the Prime Minister agree to do that promptly?

David Cameron: I think we need to look at this very carefully. Lord Justice Leveson is incredibly tough about what he sees as the failures to act on the Information Commissioner’s report. We need to look very carefully at that, as well as at my hon. Friend’s point.

Sheila Gilmore: Many of my constituents had grave concerns about the BSkyB takeover and the fact that it nearly happened. It did not happen, but not because of anything in our law or practices that would have stopped it. Will the Prime Minister undertake to act on that promptly?

David Cameron: On the issue of whether politicians should be taken out of media merger decisions, Lord Justice Leveson finds that that should not happen. He says this is an issue about which someone has to be the decision-maker, and he believes that a politician acting correctly in a quasi-judicial capacity is the right person. The findings about how my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), the then Culture Secretary, acted bear good reading.

Andrew Bridgen: The report’s executive summary makes clear that
	“successive Labour administrations, in power for 13 years…made no more progress than their predecessors in addressing problems in the culture, practices and ethics of the press”.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree? Also, given all the noise the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) has produced on this topic, does my right hon. Friend share my surprise that he is not present in the Chamber?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have made more progress on addressing these issues in the last two and a half years than was made during the previous 13.

Simon Danczuk: Does the Prime Minister really, genuinely believe that the victims will be satisfied with his statement today?

David Cameron: What I would say to all the victims is that the true test of this is whether, in four or six months’ time, we have in place proper independent regulation that we can be proud of in this country. That, in the end, is the test and that is what they want to know about. Will there be fines? Will there be proper apologies? Will there be proper investigations? That is what defines independent regulation and that is what we need.

John Baron: The Prime Minister’s instinct against statutory regulation is absolutely right, but does he also accept that a key part of the problem is that many people in this country feel that they cannot gain access to justice because of a legal system that is too complex and too costly? What can the Government do to put that right?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right. Access to justice is one of the issues that needs to be addressed. At the same time, as I have said before, it should not be that the only way to get redress from the press is to sue them or find a policeman because a law has been broken. There should be a proper, independent regulatory system where complaints can be investigated. With the Press Complaints Commission, people had a sense that even if they got their complaint investigated, nothing would actually happen. That is what needs to change because in my view just relying on the civil and criminal law is not enough.

Paul Flynn: Lord Leveson says that he regrets that former Deputy Commissioner John Yates did not reflect on his close friendship with the deputy editor of the News of the World before he decided in 2009-10 not to reopen the hacking inquiries. Is not the great shock of this report the revelations of the very close relationships between press, police and politicians? What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do, personally and as a Prime Minister, to ensure that the corrosive effects of cronyism are reduced?

David Cameron: On the relationship between the press and politicians, this Government have taken unprecedented action to publicise and make transparent all the meetings between politicians and editors, and politicians and proprietors. All that is now declared on a quarterly basis and that is how it should be. That did not happen in the past. The report recommends that that should also apply between senior officers and members of the press and that, to try to end excessively close relationships, there should be a cooling-off period before police officers go and work for newspapers. Lord Leveson does address those issues. We have not waited for the report; we have gone on and put those things in place.

Angie Bray: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we may be missing something rather important this afternoon? More and more people are getting their news from digital media, which remains way outside any kind of regulation. It in many ways is going to be a longer-term threat to the health of our newspaper industry.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The issue is brought out in the early parts of this large, four-volume report, about the nature of change in the media industry. That does mean that we need to have a system of regulation for newspapers that is sensible and proportionate and recognises the change that is taking place.

Katy Clark: The main concentration of power is, of course, in media and press ownership, which is made up of so few people. Does the Prime Minister agree with the 75% of people in opinion polls who want that concentration to be broken up? Does he believe that legislation is required to do that? Will he use the communications Bill, for example, to deal with some of the new media that have been referred to?

David Cameron: What matters is that we have the proper application of competition policy, that Ofcom is able to look at plurality and that we make decisions on that basis.

John Leech: This afternoon, Lord Justice Leveson has called time at the last-chance saloon. I welcome his commitment to a free press and a regulator independent of both press and politicians. However, does the Prime Minister accept that for that to work effectively, a careful balance needs to be struck between incentives and disincentives so that all the press sign up?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend’s words are extremely wise. What Lord Justice Leveson has effectively said is, “Here is an opportunity to put in place independent regulation.” He says in the report that if that is not done, regrettably, full-on statutory regulation will have to be introduced because we cannot maintain the status quo. I think that that is the right approach. The only difference that I am putting forward is that, as well as putting in place these principles, we need to look very carefully at one or two of the recommendations that he makes about how that should be done.

Jeremy Corbyn: May I take the Prime Minister back to the multiplicity of media ownership and the extreme concentration in the hands of a very small number of companies of not only the print media, but the control of the distribution system of the print media, which often means that small-circulation papers cannot get to a wider public because of the stranglehold of the distribution system? That fetters the ability of all of us to access a wide variety of the press.

David Cameron: As I said, the press, like every other industry, should be fully subject to competition policy and fully competitive. I part company with the hon. Gentleman on one issue—because of the growth of the digital media, the costs of distributing opinion, fact and newspapers online have come radically down.

Alun Cairns: Does the Prime Minister agree that statutory underpinning in the wrong hands, possibly in the future, could lead to statutory regulation by the back door?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. The point I am making is that putting in place underpinning may well turn out to be not as simple as having a one or two-clause Bill. We would have to start defining what the body is, what the body does, what powers it has and what the extent of it is, rather as there is in the Irish system. Once we have done that, we would be in danger of finding that we have put in place a statutory Act on the press that is then very, very easy to amend. My point is that this House of Commons should pause, stop and think before taking a step of that magnitude.

Andrew Miller: I would have some sympathy with the point the Prime Minister makes about the Data Protection Act if that was all Leveson said about that Act. However, he goes on to talk about creating a commission which would have a broader base, including people from the media. Does that not counterbalance some of the Prime Minister’s legitimate concerns about the Data Protection Act recommendations? Perhaps there is an argument for doing the same thing with Ofcom, too.

David Cameron: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s points. My reading of this is that what is being recommended is to stop some of the exemptions from data protection that journalists currently have but to put in place a public interest defence at the end. I am advised that that could have a very bad effect on investigative journalism. Again, I think that, instead of just waving through what could be a very profound change, it is worth stopping, talking and having cross-party discussions
	about this. That is why I do not think anyone, by rights, really can stand up today and say, “I accept the Leveson inquiry in full.” They would not be doing their duty as legislators and as politicians if they do not actually have a look at what this means.

John Hemming: Does the Prime Minister think that the Leader of the Opposition, in his enthusiasm for putting the Government in a strong position in respect of the regulator, forgot to call for the renaming of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as the ministry of truth?

David Cameron: Well, we certainly have got a long way to the truth about the DCMS in this report, and I hope that colleagues will look at that very closely.

William Bain: The Prime Minister will recall that my constituents the Watson family gave evidence to the inquiry that they have had their lives devastated for the past 21 years by grossly inaccurate reporting of the murder of their daughter Diane, reports that led to their son taking his own life. Do not they and the other victims deserve us, as parliamentarians, to put in place a powerful independent regulator whose role and functions are underpinned by statute?

David Cameron: I think that they, as all victims do, deserve a really tough, independent regulatory system that can really hold the press to account, that can fine those editors, that can call them to account, that can insist on proper apologies and that can take up complainants’ cases and deal with them properly. That is the absolute key. Of course there is a debate to be had about statutory underpinning, yes or no. But the real debate is: is this regulatory body going to be powerful enough to get to the truth and do what needs to be done?

George Eustice: The Defamation Bill is currently going through Parliament with the support of all parties and even of the press. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is a good example of successful statute being introduced by this House—perhaps the idea is not quite as revolutionary as he said? Does he think it is wrong for newspapers to support statutes which are in their interests but oppose statutes which might protect civil society? Just as he has an open mind to a regulatory model without statute, does he agree that editors should keep an open mind to using some statute?

David Cameron: I hope everyone will have an open mind as they read this report and the conclusions about some of the terrible things that have happened in the press, but above all what I want editors to do is engage properly with what Leveson has said needs to happen to the regulatory system. As I say, there is no need to wait for long conversations about that. He sets out what is wrong with Hunt-Black and what needs to be put in place. That work should start straight away.

Thomas Docherty: The Opposition have called for genuine cross-party discussions. I note that the Secretary of State for Education
	does not appear to be in his seat, so will the Prime Minister confirm that there will be no smearing of Lord Leveson while those talks are taking place?

David Cameron: He is not Gordon Brown.

Robert Buckland: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Particular attention should be paid to paragraphs 74 and 75 of the document, in which Lord Justice Leveson does not come to a specific conclusion about what to do if particular newspapers do not choose to sign up to any system of regulation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is for this place to debate not only the principle of underpinning, which I support, but, for example, whether Ofcom is the most appropriate regulator or whether there should be a separate regulator for the print media?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is referred to in paragraph 75 of the summary document, but he needs then to go away and look at the bit of the very long report to which it refers. In paragraph 75, Lord Justice Leveson states:
	“For the sake of completeness I have…set out in the Report the options that…would be open to the Government to pursue… in that regrettable event”—
	that is, if the press do not agree to the principles of self-regulation. That would include pretty full-on statutory regulation, which is something we all want to avoid and Lord Leveson wants to avoid. Separately, my hon. Friend’s point about Ofcom is well made and I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will think carefully about that specific issue, because it requires further thought.

Gregg McClymont: The Prime Minister alluded to what Lord Justice Leveson says about Alex Salmond’s attempt at intervention on behalf of Rupert Murdoch. Is he aware of Leveson’s conclusion that Mr Salmond
	“stood ready to lobby first Dr Cable and later Mr Hunt”,
	and that
	“Acceding to Mr Salmond’s argument would have rendered the decision unlawful”?

David Cameron: I am afraid that in the time available I have not been able to get to that point—I think it is page 1312—but from memory, I would say that the issue with respect to the First Minister is that he was apparently having a conversation about the bid at the same time as asking for support at the election. The Scottish National party might want to reflect on that.

James Morris: A free press is fundamental to a free society, but that freedom is dependent on a responsible press. Does the Prime Minister agree that self-regulation of the press has not had an auspicious history and that whatever conclusions are reached on independent regulation it should enshrine a new culture of responsibility in the British media?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. What needs to take place is not just a change in regulation but a change in culture within the press. The whole
	Leveson report has rightly engendered a big debate in the press about the culture, the practices and what needs to change. That needs to happen, but we must also put in place the regulatory system.

Mr Speaker: Last but never forgotten, I call Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I thank the Prime Minister for standing up for our ancient liberties and refer him to the rather ominous phrase on page 1781 of the report, which states:
	“In order to give effect to those incentives I have recommended legislation”?
	It is very hard to see how giving incentives by legislation is not licensing. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is better ultimately to have an irresponsible but free press than to have a responsible but state-controlled press?

David Cameron: First, may I commend my hon. Friend for his extraordinary powers of speed-reading in getting to page 1781 quite so quickly? He might also want to look at page 1780, which sets out the first part of the statutory underpinning recommended by Lord Justice Leveson, which is a guarantee of media freedom. It is an attractive idea to write a guarantee of media freedom into the law, but even that needs to be qualified. It is worth while looking at subsection 3 of the suggested example, which states:
	“Interference with the activities of the media shall be lawful only insofar as it is for a legitimate purpose”.
	We might start writing into the law qualifications and issues that people in this House might want to consider carefully.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Prime Minister and all colleagues for their succinctness, which meant that all 52 Back Benchers who wished to contribute in the 50 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time were able to do so.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order No. 9 I would like to move a motion. The Prime Minister has given the Government statement. We are in a unique situation where it is proposed that there should be two Government statements. A similar occasion occurred in 1932, which was followed four days later by a vote of confidence in the Government.
	Motion  made ,That this House do now adjourn.— (Mr Bone. )

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. His historical recollection of the events of 1932 is indeed faultless, but I know he will be interested in my reply to his point of order. He seeks to move the Adjournment of the House. He will be well aware, I feel certain, that under Standing Order No. 35 I have the power to put the Question immediately, to allow the motion to be debated, or not to accept the motion. I do not accept the motion and we will therefore proceed with the statement.

Leveson Inquiry

Nicholas Clegg: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a further statement to the House. I know it is unusual, but this is an unusual debate.
	The terms of reference for Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry were agreed on a cross-party basis and, as the House has heard, we intend to proceed on a cross-party basis, so it is right that Parliament is clear on the initial views of the whole coalition. I agree with much of what has already been said by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition concerning the principles of the Leveson report. That bodes well for the cross-party talks that are taking place for the first time later this afternoon, which in my view must establish an early and clear timetable for the decisions that we must take so that the momentum for action is not lost.
	I thank Lord Justice Leveson for his extremely thorough report. There are two big liberal principles at play in this debate: on the one hand, the belief that a raucous and vigorous press is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy, and on the other, the belief that the vulnerable, the innocent and the weak should be protected from powerful vested interests. A free press does not mean a press that is free to bully innocent people or free to abuse grieving families.
	What I want now is for us to strike a better balance between these two liberal principles so that our media can scrutinise the powers that be, but cannot destroy innocent lives; so that the journalists up in the Press Gallery can hold us, the politicians, to account, but we can look up to the individuals and families in the Public Gallery knowing that they have the right protections in place.
	I have always said that I would support Lord Justice Leveson’s reforms, providing they are proportionate and workable. I will come on to why I believe that is the case as far as the report’s core proposal is concerned—namely, a tougher system of self-regulation, supported by new independent checks recognised in law. But I do not want to disguise the fact that I have some specific concerns about some specific recommendations—for example, on some of his ideas concerning data protection rules, and on the suggestion that it should be Ofcom which independently verifies the new press watchdog.
	Ofcom has a key role in regulating the content of broadcast media. I am yet to be convinced that it is best placed to take on this new, light-touch function with the print media too. Lord Justice Leveson said in his report that this function could be fulfilled by a different body. However, on the basic model of a new self-regulatory body, established with a change to the law, in principle I believe this can be done in a proportionate and workable way. I understand the entirely legitimate reasons why some Members of the House are wary of using legislation. I myself have thought long and hard about this.
	I am a liberal. I do not make laws for the sake of it, and certainly not when it comes to the press. Indeed, when I gave my own evidence to the inquiry, I made the point that if we could create a rigorous, independent system of regulation which covers all the major players without any changes to the law, of course we should consider that. But no one has yet come up with a way of doing that.
	Lord Justice Leveson has considered these issues at length. He has found that changing the law is the only way to guarantee a system of self-regulation that seeks to cover all of the press. He explains why his proposed system of sticks and carrots has to be recognised in statute in order to be properly implemented by the courts. What is more, changing the law is the only way to give us all the assurance that the new regulator is not just independent for a few months or years, but is independent for good. Someone will need to check periodically that the independence of the regulator has not been weakened over time, and the report explains why that needs to be set out in law. As Lord Justice Leveson himself states,
	“this is not, and cannot be characterised as, statutory regulation of the press”.
	It is a voluntary system, based on incentives, with a guarantee of proper standards. It is not illiberal state regulation.
	It is worth dwelling on that point for a moment, because although there has rightly been a lot of discussion about the risks of legislating, some key arguments have been missing from the debate so far. First, the press does not operate in some kind of lawless vacuum; it has to abide by the law. In many instances it is already protected by the law, and I agree with the report that we should go further in enshrining the freedom of the press in statute.
	Secondly, it has been suggested that using law will blur the line between politicians and the media, but we must not ignore the extent to which that line has already been blurred under the current system of self-regulation. It is the status quo which has allowed such cosy relationships between political and media elites to arise in the first place. Let us not forget that that of the five Press Complaints Commission chairs, three were serving parliamentarians who took a party whip. Far from allowing greater overlap, the laws that have been proposed give us a chance to create a hard wall between politics and the press.
	Thirdly, as the report notes, there is already an example of statutory underpinning in the Irish Press Council, which has been accepted by a number of UK newspapers. The Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Star, The Sun, The Sunday Times, The Mail on Sunday and the Sunday Mirror are all members—they all publish Irish editions. I have not yet heard those papers complain of a deeply illiberal press environment across the Irish sea.
	Of course, neither I nor anyone can be certain of exactly how the proposals will look until we have worked them up in detail. The two tests I have set—that any reforms must be workable and proportionate—will need to be met in practice as much as in principle. If they are not, I will be the first to sound the alarm. In that event, we would then need to consider how to make progress, because the absolute worst outcome in all this would be for nothing to happen at all.
	We must not now prevaricate. I, like many people, am impatient for reform. Put bluntly, nothing I have seen so far in this debate suggests to me that we will find a better solution than the one that has been proposed; nor do I draw any hope from the repeated failure of pure self-regulation that we have seen over the past 60 years. We need to get on with this without delay. We owe it to the victims of these scandals, who have already
	waited too long for us to do the right thing—too long for an independent press watchdog in which they can put their trust. I am determined that we should not make them wait any more. I commend this statement to the House.

Harriet Harman: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his excellent statement. This is an unprecedented procedure, but it was important for him to make it as leader of his party. As he has said, our democracy needs, indeed depends upon, the existence of a free press, but a strong press must be a clean press. The wrongdoing brought shame on a press that has a great tradition and is admired around the world. That wrongdoing by the press brought misery to families who were already suffering. We heard the brave and harrowing evidence of the Dowlers and the McCanns. We often talk of walking a mile in someone’s shoes; none of us would want to walk even one step in theirs.
	The Leveson proposals are to stop that happening again. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that they will strengthen the press by ensuring that it has the legitimacy—the moral authority—to hold power to account, and that by providing for a proper complaints system, they will protect individuals from abuse and unwarranted intrusion? We believe that the system Leveson proposes is independent both of politicians and of the press. We also believe that that can be achieved only by legislation on the basis Leveson proposes. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree?
	Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to the timetable that the Leader of the Opposition has set out: that by the end of January next year, this House should have the opportunity to debate and vote on taking the Leveson proposals forward? Will he commit his party to vote to support Leveson’s core proposals? Does he agree that we should expect the legislation to have completed its passage through both Houses by the end of the next parliamentary Session, which starts in May next year? We are about to go into all-party talks. Will he assure the House that he will not kick this into the long grass? Will he assure us that he will not allow the press to have yet another lock-in at the last-chance saloon?
	I agree with what the Deputy Prime Minister said, but does he agree that what the Prime Minister said amounts to nothing more than a craven acceptance of the status quo? If the Prime Minister does not think again, he will have surrendered to powerful press interests and betrayed the victims.

Nicholas Clegg: It is obvious, of course, that the Prime Minister and I come at this from different angles, but the right hon. and learned Lady should not overlook the perfectly legitimate misgivings—I happen not to share them, but they are none the less misgivings—that the Prime Minister has expressed about legislation in such a sensitive area.
	I have no problem with a speedy timetable, which is obviously one of the main things that we need to concentrate on this afternoon in the cross-party talks. I strongly agree with the right hon. and learned Lady that the long grass is last place this problem should end up. We have got to act now in one way or another.
	Lord Justice Leveson has put forward his proposals, and I am convinced that he has made a case for legislation. I have not seen—no one has—what that legislation would actually look like. It is important that we see his proposals translated into draft legislative form so that we can all examine that and make the rapid progress that I think everybody, whatever their different views on specific aspects of this report, believes is now necessary.

Edward Garnier: I declare an interest as a member of the media law Bar.
	Will the Deputy Prime Minister—it is always a joy to hear him—set out very briefly the differences in principle between the view that he takes and that of the Prime Minister?

Nicholas Clegg: The difference is that I believe that the case for legislation has been made, but of course I acknowledge that we now need to show how it could be delivered in practice in a proportionate and workable way. The Prime Minister—I hesitate to recap what he said while he is sitting next to me—has thoughtfully expressed his serious misgivings about taking the step of legislation, but has not entirely excluded that possibility in the absence of other viable alternatives. I think that, in a nutshell, is the difference between our two approaches.

Jack Straw: Echoing an important point made by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the Prime Minister was incorrect when he talked about crossing the Rubicon in writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land, because the press themselves explicitly asked that there be direct reference to the press complaints code in what became section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998? The press have already sought a statutory underpinning of what they do. All that Leveson is proposing is to give greater strength to the process that they began in 1998.

Nicholas Clegg: What I think we can all agree on—Lord Justice Leveson places great emphasis on this in his report—is that none of this would have arisen if the press had abided by its own code. What surprised all witnesses to the Leveson inquiry—it certainly surprised me, because I was not familiar with the details of the code—was that on reading the code, one thought, “This is excellent—brilliant!” We just need to ensure that it is enforced.
	That is where the debate now comes: it is about the means. Everybody agrees that the end must be the application of the principles set out by Lord Justice Leveson. Everybody agrees that the code itself was well drafted and that, if it had been enforced in full, the problems would not have arisen in the first place. The debate, which is clearly already raging this afternoon, is about how we can make absolutely sure that that is done in a way that is independently monitored and that endures. My view is that Lord Justice Leveson has made the case for why that can be done only through legislation, although I stress that how that legislation is crafted is a separate matter, to which the House will need to address itself.

Martin Horwood: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that one of the greatest expressions of liberty in the world is the first amendment to the American constitution—a measure in statute if ever there was one? That has proved to be compatible with legal restrictions on copyright and obscenity which, as in this country, provide a statutory framework for the press already. Should that not reassure traditional champions of liberty, even the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), that it is possible to have a legal framework that guarantees both the freedom of the press and the rights of individuals?

Nicholas Clegg: I accept that there is a big philosophical difference between liberals, who, as I have sought to explain, try to balance freedom with the hurt endured by people who are abused by the powerful, and libertarianism, which believes that freedom should be completely untrammelled and unconstrained. The latter is not a philosophy that I believe in—it is a one-eyed approach to freedom. The press has always operated within the ambit and the context of the law. It is creating a straw man to imply that law is always inimical to the exercise of freedom in the press. That is a slightly absurd position, because the press has been constrained and indeed protected in many respects by the law for generations.

Jim Dowd: The detail of the new regulatory body is critical, but does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that it is only within the legal underpinning that the public support that is so crucial to any new regulator is carried?

Nicholas Clegg: I have expressed my own views about the assertions that Lord Justice Leveson makes about that. As I said, this is a debate about means, not ends. Let us dwell for a minute on the fact that this afternoon everybody appears to have agreed that what we need is tough, independent regulation of the press, where people are properly protected when things go wrong. The debate is about whether legislation is the indispensible means to deliver that.

Peter Bottomley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on anticipating what was in the Leveson report and on anticipating that he would have a disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
	How does my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister think statutory underpinning by Ofcom would have prevented what happened in the past?
	I commend to my right hon. Friend a book called “The Laughter of Triumph” by Ben Wilson, which is about William Hone, the man who got criminal libel laughed out of practical use. We ought to have a sense of proportion.
	We must also protect the rights of newspapers such as the ones that campaigned for Stephen Lawrence and that almost certainly broke rules. If there had been statutory underpinning then, what would have happened?

Nicholas Clegg: Lord Justice Leveson advocates legislation for three reasons. First, he does not think that the system of incentives—the carrots and
	sticks that he is offering the press so that they all join in the new system—would work without law. Secondly, he thinks that that is the only way in which we can establish a credible process of “verifying”, as he puts it, the independence of the new self-regulatory system. Thirdly, and crucially, he thinks that there should be additional protections in law to enshrine the freedom of the press. I ask the hon. Gentleman, in return, to accept that it is perfectly rational to suggest that these things can be held in balance and that it is not a zero-sum game between freedom on the one hand and regulation that protects the vulnerable on the other.

Ben Bradshaw: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it would be a betrayal of the victims if we allowed the Leveson report to be kicked into the long grass, which his exactly what has happened to every previous report into press standards? If he cannot persuade the Prime Minister, will he and his party work with us and the significant number of Conservatives who support the Leveson report to implement its proposals as quickly as possible?

Nicholas Clegg: The Prime Minister, The Leader of the Opposition and I will start talking this afternoon, in a positive spirit, to try to find a cross-party approach. I think the British people would lose patience with this place if we turned an important issue, which is being treated with the seriousness it deserves this afternoon, into a political football. I want to avoid that and find a solution together that not only answers the demands of the victims, but provides a solution for the country. After two and a half years in coalition, I am used to starting from different positions and finding a solution that suits the whole country in the end.

Mark Reckless: Does the Deputy Prime Minister speak for the Government, and what are the implications of his statement today for the doctrine of Cabinet collective responsibility?

Nicholas Clegg: In a coalition Government there can be no collective position that is not agreed collectively by all parts of that Government. I know people in Westminster get terribly hot under the collar about some of these doctrines, but people out there in the country find it perfectly normal that in a Government with two parties, there are issues on which those parties, because they are two parties, might not have the same view. We have to be relaxed and grown up about explaining that to the House and to the public and then, as has been set out, seek to resolve those issues in the national interest.

Joan Ruddock: The Deputy Prime Minister has spoken about 60 years of failure of self-regulation. That is precisely why the public, and particularly the victims, will not be able to accept the Prime Minister’s position today. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition might not be able to persuade the Prime Minister, may I wish the Deputy Prime Minister every success in trying to bring the right hon. Gentleman round to his point of view?

Nicholas Clegg: That is a daily undertaking on many issues. I win some and I lose some.
	I say again that we will not get what we all want out of cross-party talks unless we first agree that we all want the code by which the press was supposed to abide to be properly respected, and we want the principles set out by Lord Justice Leveson to be respected. If we keep that in mind and ensure those objectives are delivered, we will do a big and good thing for the country and future generations.

Julian Huppert: We have just heard about the 60 years of failure of self-regulation, and newspapers have been given five previous chances. Under Labour and Conservative Governments, the problem has not been solved: there has been too cosy a relationship between politicians and the press, and abuse of victims. What does my right hon. Friend think is different about this Government, who set up the Leveson inquiry and will now make some progress?

Nicholas Clegg: My hon. Friend wants me to say, “Other than the fact that the Liberal Democrats are in it?” I think it was right that we in the Government collectively decided to take the unprecedented step of asking Lord Justice Leveson, with help from the panel members, to look at the issue in the round. He has very wide terms of reference and has not yet completed his work in full. The sheer breadth of what he has been asked to do is revealed in the sheer volume of what he has produced.

Keith Vaz: As the Deputy Prime Minister knows, when the Prime Minister set up this inquiry it was in two parts. He did not mention part 2 in his statement, but may I assume that the Prime Minister fully supports part 2 of the report, which deals with relationship between the police and the investigations they have conducted? Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is vital that we give the police in London all the resources they need, so that Operations Weeting, Tuleta and Elveden can be completed as soon as possible? At the moment, it looks like a timetable of three years.

Nicholas Clegg: On the first point, the Prime Minister did refer to part 2 of the report and reiterated that the Government’s attitude to part 2 and to the inquiry as a whole has not changed from the day it was established. He also explained that part 2 is affected by criminal investigations being conducted right now. We will of course endeavour wherever we can to ensure resources are provided so that criminal investigations being conducted by the Metropolitan police are completed as quickly as possible.

Peter Bone: The first duty of the Deputy Prime Minister is to support the Prime Minister. We have today seen something that has never happened before in parliamentary history. The doctrine of collective responsibility has been swished away by the Deputy Prime Minister. How can he spend 25 minutes at the Dispatch Box criticising my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and remain in the Government? Is he considering resigning?

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Gentleman and I have had this exchange countless times. He still struggles to get coalition. His party did not win the election, and my party did not win the election, so we
	have a Government of two parties that must compromise. That is different to previous one-party Governments. It might lead to anomalies, glitches and innovations in this venerable place that he finds unwelcome, but that is the reality of coalition government. I suspect it will be repeated quite a lot in future.

Luciana Berger: What actions will the Deputy Prime Minister and his Government take if newspapers do not establish the new system?

Nicholas Clegg: It is incredibly important that the newspaper industry heed what hon. Members have said and what the Prime Minister has said forcefully—that the ball is now in their court to make the first move of showing that they can propose a self-regulatory institution, which would be independently verified in one way or another as soon as possible. It would be an extraordinary failure if the press do not take up that opportunity and respond to Lord Justice Leveson’s invitation for their own good. Everybody who cares about our great British press knows that the public need to be reassured that they will abide by higher standards in future.

Tim Farron: Given that we can choose one of two extremes—one is a dangerously politicised regulation of the press, and the other is allowing editors to continue to regulate themselves through a lock-in at the last-chance saloon—is not the best thing to do to accept the advice of an independent commission that sat for so long, heard so much evidence and produced such a lengthy report, so that we do not kick the matter into the long grass, and so that we give the victims of the worst examples of journalism the justice they deserve?

Nicholas Clegg: I agree with my hon. Friend’s basic premise that, if the central insights of Lord Leveson are good ones, we should implement them. However, I disagree with hon. Members who have implied that the report should be adopted in its entirety, with every t crossed and every i dotted. There is a lot of dense and complex stuff in the report. There is an extensive chapter on data protection. I am no data protection expert, but Parliament will want to scrutinise the implications of that chapter properly. We should adopt Leveson’s central insights and what he is seeking to deliver, but I do not believe we should therefore suspend all critical faculties on some of the detail, which must be got right.

Nigel Dodds: It is clear that Leveson does not propose in any way any kind of statutory regulation of the press, and no one in the House wants to see that in any shape or form. Is it not very important, as the debate progresses in the coming days and weeks, that nobody either outside or inside the House, by open assertion or implication, tries to frame the debate in those terms? This is about getting proper redress for those who have been abused; it is not about statutory regulation of the press or crossing any Rubicon.

Nicholas Clegg: Lord Justice Leveson was very clear and unambiguous this afternoon and in his report that he is not advocating statutory regulation, from which hon. Members on both sides of the House would recoil. What he is trying to do is ingenious, but it is materially different from statutory regulation, because it is based on voluntary participation—yes, it is driven by incentives, but it is none the less voluntary—from all parts of the press. That is why the detail and the design of the incentives he is offering to the press are incredibly important.

John Baron: The Deputy Prime Minister’s suggestion is neither liberal nor democratic. Accordingly, does he understand that many victims feel aggrieved because they are unable to seek justice through the legal system, which is often considered too complex and costly? What will he do within the coalition Government to try to put that right?

Nicholas Clegg: I do not accept the underlying premise that all this can be settled by courts and the criminal justice system. Kate and Gerry McCann had their privacy abused and were subject to the most shocking and vile accusations, which they could not have possibly remedied through the law. The hon. Gentleman should read Gerry McCann’s evidence if he really thinks it is undemocratic or illiberal to suggest that maybe we should set up a system that can help people like them. Gerry McCann went to the Press Complaints Commission and was basically told, “Sorry, there is nothing we can do.” Surely, one would have to have a heart of stone not to accept that there is something seriously, seriously wrong when there is nothing that helps Kate and Gerry McCann. I strongly reject the hon. Gentleman’s that it is illiberal and undemocratic to help them.

Angus MacNeil: Given what the Deputy Prime Minister has said and what the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, the Prime Minister now seems to have become a marginal figure on this issue. Therefore, will the Deputy Prime Minister work with the Leader of the Opposition, the First Minister of Scotland and the Taoiseach na hEireann, Enda Kenny, to find, where possible, common ground in this free movement area of the UK and Ireland in press regulation?

Nicholas Clegg: The Prime Minister has initiated the cross-party talks. They will happen shortly and I hope that, with good will, we can make progress. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Irish model. There are similarities between the Irish model and what Lord Justice Leveson is suggesting. They are not identical by any stretch of the imagination. In many ways, the Irish model is a much more direct form of the statutory establishment of a regulator than the indirect verification of a self-established regulator set up by the press. There is an important qualitative difference between the two, although, as I said earlier, it is remarkable that a number of British newspapers operate, as far as I can make out, relatively comfortably under the more exacting—dare it say slightly more illiberal?—system that exists across the Irish sea.

John Hemming: Why do we need legislation, ministerial involvement through Ofcom and implicit licensing for news printed on dead trees, but not for news displayed on computer screens?

Nicholas Clegg: Lord Justice Leveson said this afternoon that he thinks there is something qualitatively different about the impact of news printed in our newspapers than there is in the great ecosystem of digital news and news on the internet. He is not making any claims that one form of regulatory remedy is applicable to other media; he is explicitly dealing with abuses in the newspaper industry. To say that because it does not apply to others we should therefore do nothing is a curious way of making the best the enemy of the good.

Paul Farrelly: I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s stance and I accept that he has given it a lot of thought, but will he tell the House how he proposes to give effect to his views when the Prime Minister is fundamentally opposed to bringing forward any legislation to underpin a new, truly independent system of regulation? Will he urge the Prime Minister, for instance, to allow a Bill to be introduced so that the House can have a free, democratic vote on it?

Nicholas Clegg: To be fair, the Prime Minister expressed misgivings about taking a significant step. Of course, these are the kinds of things that we will talk about in the cross-party discussions, but if we all immediately start digging trenches and digging our heels in the worst of all outcomes will happen, which is that nothing will happen at all. I will work very hard to prevent that.

John Leech: During the Prime Minister’s statement, I suggested that Lord Justice Leveson had called time at the last-chance saloon. Does my right hon. Friend agree that without implementing the central planks of the Leveson report, we risk any changes brought forward being seen as yet another last chance from an industry that has failed miserably to regulate itself effectively?

Nicholas Clegg: My eye was caught by a quote from John Major, who said in his evidence to Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry:
	“I think on this occasion it’s the politicians who are in the last-chance saloon.”
	This is a test not just for the press, but this place. It is a test for us all to try to find a cross-party approach. That is best done on a cross-party basis, rather than becoming the subject of party political point scoring. On the central assertion, I think that Lord Justice Leveson’s report makes the case well for why legislation is necessary to administer his system, although as I keep stressing I do not know exactly what the legislation would look like. It is very important to get the details, as well as the principle, right.

Thomas Docherty: I commend the Deputy Prime Minister for his measured and thoughtful statement and how he has dealt with questions this afternoon. Given the two statements, will he clarify whether he intends to adopt the same principle on this issue as on the boundary proposals—that when
	he disagrees with his Conservative colleagues, Liberal Democrat Ministers will, on a point of principle, go through the Lobby with us when they agree with us?

Nicholas Clegg: To be fair, this is not driven by being in agreement with the Opposition.
	I am not going to repeat what I have said in the House about boundaries, but I accept, of course, that in coalition government there will be cases—this is one instance—where it is perfectly fair, normal and transparent to the public and the House to say, in a level-headed way, “Look, these are the differences of view.” Coalition does not mean homogenised government where the differences that naturally exist between parties are somehow eliminated.

Zac Goldsmith: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was present in the Chamber at the start of this statement. If he was, of course we will hear from him. If not, the nation will have to wait for another occasion.

Zac Goldsmith: For the record, I was here for both statements—but I moved around.

Mr Speaker: I am glad to hear it. Let us hear from the hon. Gentleman.

Zac Goldsmith: Given that my party appears to be split on this issue—judging by recent letters submitted to Lord Justice Leveson—given that the coalition is clearly split on it and given that the House is split, too, does the Deputy Prime Minister share my hope that the various measures we will be discussing over the coming weeks will be put to the House, preferably in a free vote?

Nicholas Clegg: In the first instance, before we get to that, we should seek a cross-party approach. It is nothing for the House to be ashamed of that there are strongly held views in all parties on something of principled importance. I just hope that we do not allow those differences of view to become an alibi for inaction.

Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) will remember acutely having his ear bent by me and others over the creation of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the checks and balances within it. That happened at the time we brought together the European directive and the original Act. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister precisely the same question I asked the Prime Minister. Paragraph 57 of the summary recommendations is for the creation of an information commission that would include members of the media. Does that not provide a vehicle to remove his concerns about some of Leveson’s comments on data protection?

Nicholas Clegg: I think the hon. Gentleman’s idea is, in effect, to turn the Information Commissioner into an information commission. I am no great expert,
	but that does not seem, in and of itself, to be the worrisome part of the proposals. As he will know better than I do, it is worth bearing it in mind that further and new European data protection legislation is in the pipeline on a separate timetable. That is one example of something we need to examine, but it would put the cart before the horse were we to pass all these data protection provisions, and then have to reinvent it all in the light of a new EU data protection directive. That is exactly the kind of level of detail I hope we can get into very rapidly.

Mr Speaker: Last but also never forgotten, I call Mr John McDonnell.

John McDonnell: By the way, I support the idea of separate statements— I would have liked to make some myself in the past.
	I think I know the answer, but, because it will strengthen the message, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the call that the Prime Minister has now backed for proprietors to meet the National Union of Journalists and others to start work immediately on the introduction of a conscience clause into journalists’ contracts?

Nicholas Clegg: Yes, that is one important part of a long list of issues that proprietors and editors now need to address. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the NUJ. I think I am right in saying that the NUJ has come out unambiguously in favour of a model of statutory underpinning. It is important to remember, therefore, that there are working journalists, who care as much as anybody in the House about the freedom of the press, who none the less recognise that this might be the right way to proceed.

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have enjoyed an innovation. I was going to ask whether the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) had asked whether he could make a statement after the energy statement earlier today.
	I was going to go on to say, perhaps not as light-heartedly—which means seriously—whether the Procedure Committee should be consulted on whether Ministers wanting to make a second statement should require the leave of the House or whether that should be left be to you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. In respect of his first point, if I did not know him so well, I would think that he was being mischievous, but because I know him so well, I do not think anything of the kind. Secondly, the Procedure Committee can take up any matter at any time of its own volition. It requires no permission from anybody else to do so. I feel sure that the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), will shortly have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say.
	I thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and all colleagues for their co-operation today. We now move to the next item of business.

Delegated Legislation

O rdered ,
	That the motion in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley relating to the House of Commons Members’ Fund shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice of a motion has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Anne Milton.)

PETITION
	 — 
	Rushden Lakes Retail Leisure Park

Peter Bone: Returning to normality, in my constituency there is a proposal for a retail leisure park that will create 2,000 jobs. There is massive support for it among my constituents, with many hundreds of signatures.
	The lead signatory is a Mr Jack Spriggs and the petition reads:
	The Humble Petition of residents of Rushden and Higham Ferrers, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,
	Sheweth,
	That the planning application for the Rushden Lakes retail leisure park has the support of East Northamptonshire District Council, the Borough Council of Wellingborough, Rushden Town Council, Higham Ferrers Town Council and the overwhelming majority of local residents, will provide 2,000 new jobs, a high quality leisure park and retail outlets such as Marks and Spencer.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to as speedily as possible approve the scheme.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	[P001140]

CENTRAL BEDFORDSHIRE COLLEGE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

Andrew Selous: Central Bedfordshire college is a vital institution in the constituency I am proud to represent. It has a presence in all three of the towns in my constituency—Dunstable, Leighton Buzzard and Houghton Regis. I am a strong supporter of the vital work of colleges, as they provide the skills that people need to make Britain a high value-added economy. It has an excellent new principal in Ali Hadawi, who was recently appointed a Commander of the British Empire and who turned his last college into a beacon college. I have every confidence he will do the same for Central Bedfordshire college.
	The college was founded in 1961 as Dunstable college, originally with a focus on the printing trade, and most of the buildings are the original 50-year-old buildings. C and F blocks, for example, were built in 1959 and 1960. The remaining buildings were built in 1968, with the newest built in 1973, so my hon. Friend the Minister can see that they are now quite dated.
	Central Bedfordshire college was one of 70 colleges that lost out under the old Learning and Skills Council’s Building Colleges for the Future capital programme. The college initially put in a £5 million proposal, but was told that that was not big enough and that it should go back and produce something grander—with an atrium, I believe. The college was encouraged to work up a more expensive proposal. It then put in a £40 million proposal, but unfortunately no one at the Learning and Skills Council was totting up the total cost of all the bids and the capital programme collapsed. Central Bedfordshire college was one of 70 colleges not to receive any capital grant. Those 70 colleges then went through a bidding process for the remaining amount of money available, and 13 were successful. I believe that, for some reason, all of them were in Labour constituencies, including a late application from Hartlepool college. This took place under the previous Government.
	There were then 57 colleges left with—
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9( 3 )).
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne  Milton .)

Nigel Evans: I am terribly sorry about that. It is a technicality, and it is perhaps something that the Procedure Committee could look into, at their own initiative.

Andrew Selous: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	As I was saying, there were then 57 colleges left, of which 45 were given financial assistance to prop up their balance sheets. That left 12 colleges out of the original 70 without any assistance for capital funding under the old Learning and Skills Council regime. I believe that Central Bedfordshire college is one of the very few colleges not to have received any capital funding under the three enhanced renewal grant capital funding rounds that the new Government have introduced.
	I would like to know how many colleges benefiting from the Learning and Skills Council capital grant, which was allocated under the previous Government, have received further capital funding under the enhanced renewal grant funding process. I would also be interested to know how many colleges had their ERG applications approved when they were not able to meet the match funding requirement. Central Bedfordshire college was able to meet that requirement in each of the three ERG application rounds that it put in for.
	To recap, Central Bedfordshire college has put in three ERG bids. The first was in July 2010, when it requested a £1 million contribution from the Skills Funding Agency to match a £3 million contribution from the college itself. That bid was unsuccessful. The second bid, in November 2011, involved the college requesting a £2 million contribution from the SFA to match a £4 million contribution from the college. Most recently, in September 2012, the college requested £3 million from the SFA to match a £6 million contribution from the college.
	The college had been led to believe that its bid would be prioritised, as it had not received even a pound in capital funding from those earlier rounds. It has had no written feedback on the bid process, although it has been told that it can attend a surgery at the SFA regional office. There is some puzzlement among the people running the college as to how all this is worked out. If the process is not helping the neediest colleges, perhaps it needs to be looked at again.
	I want to go into more detail about the feedback that has been received from the SFA on why the third bid was unsuccessful. Will the Minister tell me whether the due diligence exercise that is going to take place in relation to the colleges whose bids were successful could be applied to Central Bedfordshire college, to see whether it could be awarded a few more points? I understand that the bid failed by just one point, and if we could look again to see whether any additional points could be awarded, there might be a happier outcome. I understand that the college’s education case scored the highest number of points in the whole of the eastern region, and the third highest in the whole country. I am sure the Minister would agree that the education bid is at the heart of what further education colleges should be about. I wonder whether that part of the bid should have slightly more weighting than some of the more technical considerations relating to the building proposals.
	As I have said, this is the third enhanced renewal grant that the college has not been successful in securing. It has been acknowledged by officials in the Skills Funding Agency that the college is one of the neediest, if not the neediest, college in the country. In May this year, I was present when the outgoing SFA chief executive, Geoff Russell, visited Central Bedfordshire college, and he commented that the college did not need just an ERG; he would have liked to have seen a complete rebuild. Speaking as the local MP, I believe that the learners in Central Bedfordshire college deserve just as much support for creating a conducive learning environment as other students in other colleges throughout the country.
	If the process is not helping the neediest colleges, we should have a look at how that process runs. I shall discuss four specific technical areas where we think the bid has lost out. The SFA commented that the refurbishment element had not been properly environmentally assessed.
	The primary objective of the college’s bid was to construct a new centre for hair, beauty, holistic therapies and hospitality and catering, with a focus on green technology in the curriculum and skills development. In order to achieve the new build in the optimum campus location, the college had to relocate other curriculum elements, with a small amount of associated refurbishment. The college understands that it was marked down because that latter refurbishment element did not have a full environmental assessment—unlike the main new build. That refurbishment element represented only 3.3% of the total project budget. It is simply an enabling element for the project itself, and the overall project has been environmentally assessed. The college feels unhappy about that aspect of its bid’s assessment.
	The second aspect of the bid was the savings in estate costs over a 20-year period. The college was advised that other bids demonstrated larger savings over the project life of 20 years. The college, however, has come in the top quarter for national estates cost efficiency, as demonstrated by the SFA’s own data collection, which I understand is known as “e-Mandate”. That makes it hard for the college to demonstrate a huge decrease in building costs related to the bid, because it starts from such an efficient base. As a result, its savings are likely to be at a lower margin. That efficiency has been achieved by the college being very prudent and managing its projects from within its own estates department, for example. Again, the college feels that this rather crude assessment fails to take into account the efficiency point that it has already reached, even for a 50-year-old building, so it believes that it has been unfairly penalised for doing the right thing, as it were.
	The third technical aspect on which the bid was marked down related to the costs of the proposed project build against the SFA’s own cost plan. The feedback stated that the bid was 10% adrift from the SFA’s cost plan norms. In simple terms, the bid comprised the following three parts. First, there is the demolition of the old F block, dating back to 1959, as I told the Minister at the start of my speech. That F block was going to be replaced with a new build centre of excellence for green catering and for hair, beauty and holistic therapies. That did fall within the SFA’s cost norms. Secondly, there is the partial demolition of the B block and the construction of a new media studies centre, together with associated works, which also fell within the SFA cost norms.
	It was the third aspect that I think caused the college problems: the creation of a new surface-level car park and access road from the public highway. The project costs are required to conform to the appropriate SFA cost model for the type of college establishment. The first two elements of the bid, the demolition of the F block and the partial demolition of the B block, accorded with the SFA’s criteria. It was the third element, the car park, that did not accord with its indicative costs and is being regarded as abnormal.
	The college has commented that it is required to dispose of a portion of its estate in order to release capital to contribute to the cost of the project. It has also said that the land to be disposed of currently houses a significant proportion of its car-parking provision, and that because it is not practicable for it to operate
	effectively without replacing that lost parking provision, it must be replaced elsewhere on the campus. The replacement of the car park and the provision of a new access road are a fundamental component of any redevelopment scheme that relies on capital release from the sale of land to the rear of the college to enable the college to make its substantial contribution to the overall project costs.
	It was recognised at an early stage in the preparation of the stage C cost plan that the creation of the new car park would show the project costs at an unacceptable level of variance to the cost model, and for that reason two cost model comparisons were prepared and included. The first compared project costs associated with the B and F block works and their associated external works, and the second compared all project costs, including the creation of a new car park and access road.
	The fourth element was health and safety, on which the bid was marked down. The college has said to me that the reason a significant improvement was not shown was that it had already taken care of that aspect of the bid. It had worked very hard, with its own money, to deal with all the health and safety issues that might have arisen, and not a great deal of further progress could have been made.
	I hope that I have helped the Minister by giving him some feedback from the college. I hope that I have managed to explain why it feels aggrieved. In particular, I hope that I have managed to explain why the car park is necessary to the release of that significant extra contribution. The Minister has heard something of a litany of complaints, but I want to end on a positive note by telling him about the excellent things that the college is doing, notwithstanding the difficulties which I have outlined and which I hope he will be able to address when he responds.
	Central Bedfordshire college is the proud sponsor of the new Central Bedfordshire university technical college, which is one of only two UTCs in the country that opened in September this year. It will have 600 students, and I am immensely proud that the only UTC in the east of England is in my constituency. It is a fantastic innovation, and it is exactly what the country needs to drive it towards a prosperous future.
	Under construction in another location is the Incuba centre, a £5 million facility to help new businesses to develop Dunstable with a focus on the green economy. That is very welcome. It will help to re-energise the industrial base in Dunstable and Houghton Regis, and also the wider economy. Central Bedfordshire college is at the heart of that.
	More recently, the college bought a former Volkswagen garage in the Luton road in Dunstable which it is turning into the most fantastic motor vehicle training facility. A real, live, state-of-the-art garage facility, in a building where a commercial garage was operating only a few months ago, will enable my constituents and people from the wider area to train to become motor mechanics in excellent conditions.
	I know that the Minister is particularly interested in the college’s work with local employers. Again, it is doing all the things that he is asking colleges to do. It has, for instance, worked very closely with the Morrisons supermarket. I was proud to attend an event hosted jointly by the college and Morrisons. The college had provided up to 100 local unemployed people with a
	specific training course over the summer. If they completed it, they would be guaranteed a job interview at the new Morrisons branch that was opening in Houghton Regis. That initiative has been hugely successful. It has been excellent for the local unemployed people and excellent for the supermarket, which has really appreciated it. The college has done a fantastic thing.
	The college is also working with other employers, including BAE Systems and Liebherr, engaging with them to develop an employer-tailored curriculum. It is working with Center Parcs, too, another new major provider of employment in central Bedfordshire, and with the developer of the new housing development north of Houghton Regis, which will require lots of construction skills.
	It is a bugbear of mine that when there are major construction projects, the jobs often do not go to local people. It upsets me when people come in from miles around to take the jobs. Unemployed construction workers come to see me at my surgery. I am determined, as is Central Bedfordshire college, that many of the jobs created in the building of thousands of new houses to the north of Houghton Regis to help pay for the Dunstable northern bypass will be taken by local people. That is very important. CBC is at the forefront of providing the skills for the construction companies contracted to carry out that work.
	The college also works with London Luton airport in delivering cabin crew and baggage-handling skills. It is working with Luton Town football club and the Bedfordshire football association to deliver coaching and football qualifications. It is also working with our local train company, First Capital Connect.
	I hope the Minister will therefore see that the college has heard the Government’s message and is mustard-keen to provide the skills our local economy needs to help UK plc compete in the global race in which we are engaged. We just need a little bit of help with the capital funding. I think we have had a bit of a rough deal for a while now, but I know the Minister is a fair man, and I know he will look seriously into these issues. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Matthew Hancock: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this debate, which is so important for Central Bedfordshire college—for everybody who works at it and, most importantly, everybody who studies at it. I know that he raised this issue with my predecessor, and he has also raised it with me a number of times. He is a powerful advocate for the need for improvements.
	I also congratulate the college on its success in opening the new university technical college. UTCs are a crucial part of ensuring we have the skills we need in the years and decades ahead. I also commend the college on the work it is doing with local businesses to provide the skills employers need, and to ensure we make good any skills shortages. Colleges across the country are increasingly working with local employers and businesses to ensure we provide the skills they need. The driving mission behind the work we are doing and behind my job is to ensure that local people have the skills they need for the jobs that are available, such as in the construction industry, as my hon. Friend mentioned.
	For decades, colleges were starved of the funding for capital renewal that both schools and universities enjoyed. I know that from personal experience because I studied at a further education college—West Cheshire college—in the mid-1990s. Therefore, when the Learning and Skills Council offered significant capital grants, the colleges jumped at the opportunity. My hon. Friend set out the history of what happened. Bids were encouraged, and were encouraged to grow, and then promises were made without the funding to match them. Hugely expensive projects with poor cost control delivered very poor value for money in some of the projects that were completed. They ran out of money, and building projects were stopped, sometimes after huge expense on plans and with diggers in the ground. In that context, and in the context of the wider catastrophe that was the public finances, we are now trying to rebuild. I say that to give the background before getting on to the specifics of the case.
	We have been working hard to ensure that lessons are learned from that period. One of those lessons, inevitably, is that we should have a firm and unbending eye on value for money, the physical infrastructure needs of colleges and the benefits to students that capital spending can bring. The approach is coupled with the urgency for affordability. That is the background to how the criteria for making decisions are structured.
	We consult the sector on the criteria for deciding allocations. We then provide colleges with advice on the criteria, assess and moderate—and fund when an application is successful. We are happy to work with the college to develop a fundable case. I will certainly look at my hon. Friend’s point about due diligence and moderation executed on successful projects to see whether those can be applied in this case.
	Since May 2010, total Government investment across the country in new colleges amounts to more than £330 million. That has enabled more than £1 billion-worth of projects. Across the whole programme, £2 of private cash have been put in for every £1 of Government cash. My hon. Friend said that that was the case with Central Bedfordshire college’s bids, too.
	Let me go through some of the specifics of what has happened in the three rounds of renewal grant that have been set out so far. The first is that we have had 117 bids for college funding, which would have cost in excess of £200 million if all had been approved. I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s argument about the quality of the buildings at the college—60% of its buildings are in poor or inoperable condition. I am sad to report to him that, of the 240 general further education colleges across the country, 59 are in a worse state on this measure than Central Bedfordshire college. Although the college has a high level of need, such need, unfortunately, is replicated in some colleges across the country.
	The first criterion relates to the condition of the existing estate; Central Bedfordshire college has a case, but there are other colleges with a worse rating. The second criterion is value for money, and my hon. Friend reported the concerns raised about that issue. I entirely understand his point that, having done work to ensure good value for money in respect of running costs, the college feels penalised. He will understand that value for money has to be a critical part of our assessment. I give my hon. Friend this commitment: we will work with the college to see what can be done to improve the
	value for money in the bid. The third criterion is the benefits that would flow from the work as planned. In that area, as he stated, Central Bedfordshire college did relatively well.
	On my hon. Friend’s specific questions, 10 colleges got funds without match funding, but they offered much stronger value for money and benefits in the rest of their bids. Of course, the amount of match funding is a critical part of the question, but it is not the only element of value for money. Only one college in the third round of the enhanced renewal grant had received serious amounts of money since 2001. A very strong emphasis was placed in these bids on those colleges that have received less than £5 million since 2001, and in the third round only one college, Barnsley college, had received more than that since then. By contrast, Central Bedfordshire college had received £450,000 since 2010, including £225,000 in the first round, £100,000 in the second round and £120,000 to help work up the bid for the third round. We are going to have to work with the college in future to see what further we can do to try to get it over the line.
	My hon. Friend asked about written feedback, which will, of course, be provided. Earlier this month, the college, including the principal, met civil servants for oral feedback, but we will also provide written feedback. On my hon. Friend’s point about rebuild, I am tempted not to recommend that we again go down the route of suggesting yet more expensive propositions for the college, but we should keep all options on the table. On the point about the education case being the best in the east of England, I am glad to say that these things are no longer done on a regional basis and are instead done on a national basis. The college scored well in that area.
	As my hon. Friend said, the college scored 21 out of a possible 39 points in the process and was just one point short of the score deemed necessary to secure funding. There is broad agreement that the process was carried out on a fair, open and competitive basis; the process was agreed in consultation with the sector. Even so, an appeals process is available for colleges that feel they have been hard done by. I entirely understand his disappointment and I commend the pressure he is applying.

Andrew Selous: The Minister may not be able to do this now, but will he respond, perhaps in writing later, on the issue of the car park? It seems that the bid was marked down severely on that basis, and I want to check that he has understood the point I was making about the car park being essential for the release of a significant sum of the college’s own money in order to match fund.

Matthew Hancock: I understand the point about the car park, and I will look into it and get back to my hon. Friend on the specifics. I am sorry to say that I cannot give him a clear and specific answer today, but of course I will be happy to work with him to see what we can do in the months ahead. As and when details of any future capital funding are made available, we will work with the college. I understand, not least as a result of his lobbying, the important role the college plays in the community, what it is doing to support young people and the needs that it has. We will look carefully at, and work with him on, future propositions. I hope he will accept that and that we can move forward.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.